RIAA Sues MP3.com 323
Hiryu has the first submission of this -- "Just read this over on BetaNews
'Today in Federal District Court in New York, the Recording Industry Association of America filed suit against
MP3.com for copyright infringement with regards to its new Beam-It software. Stating that MP3.com was "in
reckless disregard of the law", the RIAA begins its second round of litigation over digital music. ...' " So let's see: Napster, Streambox, DeCSS, DeCSS, mp3.com, which digital music/video lawsuits am I forgetting?
Entertainment Industry Slaves (Score:1)
My basic thesis, suggested in my subject-line, is that folks have allowed themselves to become enslaved to the entertainment industry. Now I'll admit that "enslaved" is perhaps too strong a word, but hopelessly enamored is, IMO, too weak a description, as well.
The entertainment industries, epitomized by the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, cable industry, broadcast industry, sports industry, etc., believe they have their customers by the short ones. And to a degree: they do. Just look at the reactions when a local cable provider hikes its rates. People howl in indignation and demand Government action. As if cable TV somehow where an inalienable right and a necessity-of-life. Watch what happens when a sports franchise threatens to leave town for a more lucrative market. We make heros of movie stars??? Folks: beer is a necessity. Coffee is a necessity. A good, solid Internet connection is fast becoming a necessity. But commercial entertainment? I don't think so. Commercial entertainment, while admittedly a nice distraction from the daily grind and life's slings-and-arrows, is not a necessity.
Go read a book. Or a newspaper. Or magazine. Write some code just for the fun of it. (Using that well-crafted, open source stuff you have :-). Or can get.) Go take a nature hike. Have a snowball fight. Build a snowman. Or a sand castle. Go skiing. Or surfing. Do some maintenance on the house. Build something. Spend some time with friends--maybe play a game of Monopoly or chess. Have a conversation with someone. Go to the shooting or archery range. Go bicycling. Learn something new. Go lay in the grass and watch the clouds go by. Play with your kids. Or your pets. Or your significant other. (Don't have a SO? Go find one. That oughtta keep you occupied for a while :-).) In short: do something other than play passive-role-observer to something spawned by the imagination of somebody else. Somebody who's primary motivation is to enrich themselves by way of convincing you that you need what they're selling. In other words: get a life.
I like music as much as the next person. And movies. I'm certainly no Luddite. I own a HT system that (other than the TV itself--that's next) likely far-and-away exceeds what most folks have. And I have a tape and CD collection to match. (The DVD collection was getting there.) I truly enjoy these things. But I don't need them. I can walk away from them. Being able to walk away from these things makes it much easier to tell their purveyors, in the only terms they really understand, what you think of their actions. It's simple: you just stop buying their products.
I had several DVDs on my want-list. Because of the actions of the MPAA, my purchasing plans are on indefinite hold. And I'll not be renting any DVDs or VCR tapes, either. I also had several CDs on my current want-list. It's been a while since I've added to my music collection. These plans are also now on indefinite hold due to the actions of the RIAA. And starting Monday morning (I usually only listen to the radio in the car--on my way to-and-from work): I'll not be listening to any music radio stations any more. (Those ride-times are an excellent opportunity to spend some time with your own thoughts. Something that the constant blare of the radio distracts from.)
Find something else to amuse yourself with. And tell the commercial purveyors who believe you enslaved to their products to go to hell! .
How fun (Score:1)
(So? I got a little link happy. Sue me!!)
Re:MP3's (Score:1)
Nothing like an MP3 article to reduce the median IQ of the respondants...
Actually, I am going to take a very un/. approach and attempt to be informative rather than insulting. The problem with your argument lies in the postion you take when you state: "Above all, I have the satisfaction of having had supported the artists who produced the music, rather than have stolen from them (95% of the artists I listen to are indie). You should be made aware that the selling of recorded music almost never represents a considerable revenue stream for the artists, big or small. The only exception to this is the occasional mega-pop band who manages to keep their popularity alive long enough to renegotiate a more favorable contract. If I had the energy at this point I would search the web for an article by Steve Albini--being a fan of indy music I am sure you know who he is--which details the miserable mathematics of the situation. Maybe someone else out there has the aforementioned link handy???
Bands make their living primarily from playing live venues and this is especially true of the smaller indy musicians. IMHO, the recording industry's fear of MP3's is not really about piracy, but rather results from their awareness that the easy distribution of quality recordings seriously undermines their position as the only viable channel of distribution. While the case being discussed in this article is not a particularily appropos example of this, as I think in this instance mp3.com is clearly in the wrong, many of the recent and current suits from the RIAA demonstrate my point. What if a band could entirely circumvent the recording industry and promote themselves on a large and "professional" scale? The potential losses could be devestating. And before anyone objects that the self-distributed artists would suffer from the same ease of piracy facilitated by MP3's I think a quick look at history is necessary.
I am not aware of any band ever having gone broke from their recordings being stolen, but I am aware of numerous examples of bands having made astronomical sums of money by giving their music away. Although even metioning their name around here is inviting a veritable shit-storm of flames, the Grateful Dead are the best example. While they never made very much on their album sales, only one ever reached the top 20, they were the most profitable music act almost every single year from 68' until 95'. It turns out that allowing their fans to record and freely distribute their live concerts resulted in an incredibly devoted legion of fans allowing the Dead to play between 200 and 300 shows a year to audiences ranging from 15,000 to 200,000.
The point is, MP3 has the ability to radically change the character of the music industry by decentralizing it and making it more artist-centered. As it stands now, the record companies make tremendous profits by the selling of CD's while the artists see little and further they leverage that importance to extort a substantial piece of the artists only real source of income, the live concert. So if you really are concerned with the fate of your beloved indy artists and not corporate infrastructure which exploits them then you should rally the cause of piracy and hasten the end of the current corrupt system
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:1)
You call me a anti tech dude? common, 90% of these rare techno tracks are NOT AVAILABLE localy on CD, the rest are either mp3s from records which are NEVER printed again.
Re:This goes to show... (Score:1)
Your Right to Proxy (Score:1)
When the RIAA sued Diamond Rio, the 9th Circuit Court created the right for people to "space-shift" copies of their music.
MP3.com has set the stage for the courts to rule whether or not We The People have the right to proxy those individual rights to a third party for private use. They will likely argue that the authority to make database archival copies comes from CD owners who are virtually "space-shifting" their music.
If MP3.com wins, then we might be able to proxy all kinds of intellectual property (movies, music, television, games) to our choice of entertainment service providers-- perhaps the cable company (AOL Time Warner?), the phone company (AT&T?), ISP (Microsoft? TiVO?) or website (Slashdot? ;)
If the RIAA wins then the best we can do for ubiquitious access to music near-term will be the myPlay scheme or personal servers from home.
On the upside... (Score:1)
Re:Stupid mp3.com (Score:1)
You don't have to have the CD in the drive every time you play it. Basically, you just 'notify' mp3.com of your ownership once, using their software, when the CD is in the drive. From then on, they'll stream it to you without the disc.
Library (Score:1)
While you have it out from the library, you could copyncompress it anyway. You could even record it to reel to reel tape. Perhaps they should make those reel to reels illegal as their primary purpose it illegal copying.
How about mp3.com sets itself up as a private library and we become members. We all send in our CDs, LPs, Tapes, etc. They keep track of how many of each track they have and then only stream that number of that track at one time. 'Let us check that stream out of the library.'
The old ways of doing things ARE going to be passed by as a result of PROGRESS. These guys can fight and make noise, but they are not going to win in the end. If I am wrong and they do, you will not likely want to live in that world.
Bob Clip - friend of A Nony Mouse
"I know you agree." (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:The Ultimate Compression Algorithm? (Score:1)
The fun is when people download the program, and run it on a text file that is theoretically the beginning of a letter to Chris (Dear Chris). The output will be the DeCSS source code. Woohoo.
~Chris Carlin
I don't get it. (Score:1)
So, if a site wants to know what other books I might be interested in, and I send them a list of all the books I own, is there any sane reason why publishers get mad? Do we go apeshit over Nielsen ratings, to find out what shows people watch?
Did I misinterpret this entirely, or does this lawsuit / article have absolutely no basis in reality?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
Geez, it's my fourth year here at State. But since we both went to S&M, I guess me and my friends are either unknown, or we're the stuff of legend. I'm sure we vaguely know some people in common, at least. What was your take on the "FETC"? (Frederick was a real jerk, it's great that he's finally gone)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Hilary Rosen (Score:1)
I'm just glad the women I know aren't like that.
Of course, there are men who do this too, Jesse Helms being the best example to come to mind. But women can apparently play the "protecting the family" / "protecting the defamation of" [whatever] angle better.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
That's what didn't make sense to me. It's not about copying, it's about making a list of what CD's people have. At least, that's what that sentence sounds like to me.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:1)
Disk space and convenience. I have a small CD collection (~100 CDs) and it's taking up most of a 13GB drive. I know many people with collections much larger than mine, and not all of them would have the disk space to put their entire collection on a hard drive. One person to whom I was recently talking estimated that he has over 70GB of mp3s (all ripped from CDs he owns) burned onto mp3 collection CDs (~15 albums per CD). But not everyone has CD burners, either. So, mp3.com's Beam-It gives people the convenience of random access to their entire music collection without the problems of finding the local disk space to store it.
There is certainly a defendible legitimate use for the service. The question is whether the abuses (actual or projected) outweigh the benefits.
--Phil (Soon going to have get another drive as I get more CDs.)
Re:Yes, the user really uploads their cd to mp3.co (Score:1)
I dont mean to contradict what you are saying or play devils advocate, but where do you draw the line between lossy compression and signiture?
:) There has to be one... probably its the point at which a reasonable replication of the original data can be inferred from the cypherblock. Of course, if you have local copies of probable plain texts, a signiture may qualify.
Just thinking out loud...
Re:But they're not redistributing (Score:1)
Re:But they're not redistributing (Score:1)
Remind anyone of Ankh-Morpork? (Score:1)
This is actually a reasonable viewpoint! (Score:1)
Re:This goes to show... (Score:1)
Re:This goes to show... (Score:1)
Re:This goes to show... (Score:1)
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:1)
you make the mistaken assumption that indie musicians make alot of money from records. they don't. not even platinum records make alot of money. especially if the record is a debut. after all is said an done on a platinum debut the net is about $40,000. that is split across the past. the money isn't in the music, it's in the shows and merchandising. there is no way you can protect recordings that are so easily duplicatable.
i am an independent musician as well so you can't say i don't know what i'm talking about.
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
IT'S THE RECORD COMPANIES' FAULT!!!! (Score:1)
in most of the software i buy, the value point exceeds the convenience point. sometimes i need the associated documentation, or sometimes i need to be assured that i can get support, or it's simply not popular enough for it to be available in the pirate channels. so buying it in these cases makes more sense.
the same thing goes for music. right now cds are overpriced and it's very easy to download mp3s so if there is a song i like by an artist i'm not a fan of, i download the mp3 because the convenience point far exceeds the value point. now if a new cd comes out by an artist that i'm a fan of (nine inch nails [amazon.com] for example) i will be the first in line to buy it because i don't just want to hear it on my computer, i want to hear it in my car, in the shower, in my room, etc.. so i'm paying for the value of being able to carry it into all the places i have a cd player. the value point exceeds the convenience point.
most fans are like this. even though i have mp3, i still buy cds. also, buying the artist's record legitimatizes the fact that you are a "true fan" of the artist. that may sound corny, but it's true.
i don't buy cds of artists i'm not a fan of because i've bought too many cds where i liked a song i heard but the rest of the album was shit. it's funny how the riaa talks about theft when i can't get a refund for this shoddy product. i'm sure lots of other people have experienced this and have a sour taste in their mouths from buying cds. like i said, it's the fault of the record companies. record companies should have learned a long time ago how to make money off of artists' existing fan bases. it's called opportunity selling which these companies are extremely bad at. instead they dump bands with extremely loyal fan bases to look for the next ricky martin or britney spears so they don't have to do any work. the writing is on the wall and these companies are going to go down in flames because of their resistance to change. may they burn in hell!
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
And now, they need to sue all the music fan sites (Score:1)
all the sites that "exploit that[the artists music] for commercial gain". This is completely ludicrous. I mean, their software confirms that you have the CD that they are providing the music for. The RIAA is still getting it's fat pocket filled by the CDs that are given out, and so are the artists. Their "we are fighting for the artists" facade is completely blown to smithereens by this. The artists have ALREADY BEEN PAID. What mp3.com is doing is just like me ripping and encoding my mp3s, and putting them on a passworded ftp server for my personal use. It's completely legal. The RIAA, IMHO, just signed it's own death warrant.
Re:The Ultimate Compression Algorithm? (Score:1)
A simple re-implementation that would fall under the bounds of the law would have the first person to pop a CD in automatically encode and upload the result to the server; later users would just upload the "compressed" (verification) information to gain access. Note that under this scheme everybody gets access to all of their music, unlike the "Gee, I hope they have it scheme" that is the first incarnation of my.mp3.com...
It's interesting to note that myplay [myplay.com] (whom I've worked with) is forcing the actual upload of bits to a locker; they could transition to such a strategy as mentioned above and fall within legal bounds.
The main problem is that of the proxy. Is MP3.com allowed to make copies on behalf of customers? The service that they provide is fundamentally compelling, and IMHO not damaging to any CD owners. In this way, I believe that they fall under the bounds of the intent of the law, while failing the letter thereof.
As regards the security issue, it was brought up in the "DVD CCA vs. John Does" case that inadequate security is not an open invitation to break it, nor can it be counted as a facilitating mechanism; so that argument is moot.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
Check amp3.com then! (Score:1)
I do believe it's obvious that the RIAA is just afraid of the mp3 technology. Pretty stupid, huh?
Re:This goes to show... (Score:1)
Forget Beam-it! Instant Listening is THE BOMB!!! (Score:1)
I just bought a cd from Cheap-CDs (Sigue Sigue Sputnik...remember them?)...it'll be here in a few days.
But I'm listening to it RIGHT NOW!
Why in hell didn't someone do this before?!?!
Even better...why isn't the RIAA doing this themselves? Because I *might* copy the stream (it streams as mp3) or give someone my url, etc?
Huh?
Did ya miss the part about how I just bought it?
It's the perfect blend of hard-goods distribution, e-commerce, and good ol' 'Merkin need for Instant Gratification.
Oh. Wait. I forgot. I might wanna give my account info out to some bozo so that they can copy the stream, so the whole concept is bogus. Keep forgetting about that
I suppose if I operated on the principle that every customer *is* a crook (as opposed to every customer *could be* a crook) I'd have issues ith this as well.
As for Beam-It... I dunno. Why bother? Most remote access is at 56k anyway..atho' "One Day" it will be different.
*sigh*
But at least I can listen to my new Sputnik CD now.
Well I'm off to *shop* some more...this is GREAT!
-K
Re:Running scared (Score:1)
Which works well until the mole-pop-up-rate reaches 101 moles a minute, or 1000 a minute or
That does it (Score:1)
This is annoying (Score:2)
It's lunacy to believe that they are licensed to 'perform' or distribute spare copies of someone's music to them just because the person owns the music. THEY do not. Can we say 'sickeningly obvious'? Can we say 'guilty, guilty, guilty'? Any judge can, and will.
The frustrating part is that I'd been subconsciously counting on mp3.com to be there for me when I started putting large amounts of material out there. I don't have anywhere near the resources to host even my back catalog on my own web server, it'd break me. mp3.com were ready to host as much as I could come up with, for equal rights to distribute it and the banner ad revenue. It was a truly win/win situation, and now they've totally obliterated their perfectly legitimate stance as a hosting service for all the LEGAL mp3 artists, by attempting to also host everything they have no rights to.
For God's sake, they wouldn't host cover tunes from their artists, and now this? Please tell me there's an mp3 site out there which will host _many_ megs of data for nothing, and which ISN'T STUPID? It'd be better still if it was a big name, but AFAIK mp3.com is _the_ big name in this area, and they're absolutely blowing it and endangering the wellbeing of all the artists who believed in them- and screwing up the plans of the artists who hadn't got round to establishing a serious mp3 presence yet.
Or, perhaps, is this a rock-and-roll style publicity stunt? Could mp3.com be planning to cave at the last minute, _after_ becoming front page news all over the world, but before actually taking any damage? And then turning around and going 'Why, it's OK, really- look at ALL THE GREAT BANDS we LEGALLY have! Why, we don't need those stinky old mainstream CDs at all!'
Oh, I hope it's something like that. That'd be worthy of Malcolm McLaren- truly a cynical and ruthless bid to manipulate the media and the industry. Please, mp3.com, be that cynical! You're not helping anybody one bit if you're serious about this Beam-It stuff. It's crazy, it's stupid, you're guilty, you have no right and no reason to believe you should have such a right and IT'S A SIDESHOW TO YOUR REAL PURPOSE! Support your own damn bands, not the industry!
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
If the person has access to the CD and can put it in their drive to demonstrate that they have possession of the licensed material, then they could just as easily rip the tracks from the CD and convert them to MP3s on their drive and upload them to MP3.com. They are just saved from those extra steps by MP3.com giving them access to an archived copy. MP3.com did nothing to help them obtain an illegal copy, if that is what they are using. The customer obtained that copy prior to using MP3.com's service.
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
How can they require someone to prove ownership of a CD? Say I have a friend to makes backups of all his CDs. Then one of the originals is destroyed. He still has the backup and can listen to that. Then later I give my friend $.50 for that backup CD because he doesn't want it anymore. That CD becomes my property. I can't really prove it's mine, other than the fact that I have possession of it. I can't prove that it's a legitimate copy at all. How then can MP3.com truly verify ownership? Do I have to repurchase my entire CD collection in order to have access to it online? I'm sure the RIAA would love that since it means they get to further rip off consumers.
If I can obtain the CD long enough to put it in my drive, then I could just as easily rip the tracks, convert them to MP3s, and upload them to MP3.com. Doing this would only require access to the CD for a few minutes, but would give me permanent access to the copy. I don't see how MP3.com's service is in any way contributing to piracy. If any piracy occurs, it occurs independently of MP3.com's service.
Re:funny, but innacurate (Score:2)
I've read the letters and the text of the lawsuit, and I still think it's stupid. MP3.com hasn't done anything to allow piracy or rip anyone off. If any piracy is taking place, it's being done independently of MP3.com's service.
Re:ooh (Score:2)
Sure. Moreover, many companies do it this way - install Office applications from one disk (probably even of uncertain origin) and then buy a bunch of licenses from MS. MS never was seen to object it. And it's natural - they just get rid of burden of distributing those CDs and can make money selling just pure air and holograms in those licenses - everyone's dream, not?
Control freaks. (Score:2)
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
The only reason the RIAA think they can get away with this (and the MPAA too for that matter) is that they think the judges are too stupid to see past all the digital technology mumbo-jumbo and realise that these copying opportunities are no different than what we already had before the age of the PC and the internet.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
MP3.COM has to show that they don't make any copies of CDs which haven't been sold from their web site. But as soon as someone orders the first copy of any given CD from them, mp3.com can make a copy because that copy is licenced to the purchaser...and to any subsequent purchasers of that title.
But whether a given CD is legally owned by MP3.COM, or whether it's only owned by one or more customers, as long as the user demonstrates that they have it also by inserting it in the drive, then there's no difference in principle between the user uploading their own copy to the mp3.com site for their own personal use, and mp3.com simply enabling access to their own archived copy. Those who have demonstrated possession of the licensed material simply get access to the very same bit patterns stored in another place.
This is one place where the legal system has yet to get to grips with the difference between IP and other kinds of property. With IP, all copies are in fact the same object. You can't distinguish between one copy and another if the bit patterns are identical.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
As a result, they had no product in the pipeline, and were blindsided by the grass-roots MP3 phenomenon.
If the RIAA had come out with a music distribution mechanism for the internet even 5 years ago, MP3 may well have never come to be. Instead, the labels and RIAA ignored the format, no actually, they ignored the ENTIRE MARKET for on-line music.
Not surprisingly, the world stopped waiting for them.
Now all they have LEFT to do is pretend that MP3s are all about illegal pirating. They've missed their chance. They blew it. It's going to cost them their industry monopoly.
It isn't the first time a major industry has been destroyed this way. The railroad industry was nearly wiped out when the interstate highway system was built, because they thought that they were in the railroad industry, and forgot that they were actually in the TRANSPORTATION industry.
People who wanted to ship their products but didn't want to deal with unresponsive and expensive railroad service simply bought trucks and hired fleets of truckers.
The music labels thought that they were in the CD and cassette business, and forgot that they were in the music DISTRIBUTION business.
Just as highways and semis broke the railroad monopoly, the internet is breaking the music distribution monopoly.
They're fighting because they're big, and rich, and dying. And it's their own fault.
Corporate evolution in action. The dinosours die.
- John
I wish... (Score:2)
Hot coffee in my lap! OOooh! Sue! Money! GREED! (Score:2)
My home and native land,
True intellectual rights
In all that Law commands.
With glowing screens
We code all night
From persecution, Free!
To innovate, encrypt,
And Hack*,
Protected, completely!
States, keep away!
Greed, you can't sue me!
O, Canada,
We stand on guard for thee,
O, Canada,
We stand on guard for thee!
...Just my little bit of appreciation for where I live.
Having lived/worked in the states, and travelled within it quite a lot, all I can say is... wow. Different world. Completely.
As your very own Ross Perot said once... "Money is the most overrated thing in the world."
*Hack, not crack. That's illegal here.
** BTW, that's sung to the tune of our national anthem, in case you didn't figure it out. Do you guys even know how many provinces we have? What our capital is? Who our Prime Minister is? Sheesh!
*** Flames elsewhere. We have freedom of speech here.
Re:This goes to show... (Score:2)
Yep. As you can see, it's the 'American way'.
Legal threats to stop technology remind me of the laws enacted by angry farmers in the earlier part of the 20th century which required car owners to pull over if a horse-drawn cart was coming through, then dismantle the engine as not to frighten the horse. The driver could then repair his auto and continue, until the next horse.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Re:ooh (Score:2)
They need to get a clue, cluetrain style:
[cluetrain.com]
I don't see how consumers would ever switch to RIAA crap like SDMI. Even if MP3.com gets shut down, it will make *absolutely no dent* in illegal mp3 trading.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Yes, I believe if I actually sent them the data and they stored it for me, and streamed it later, they would have a better case.
I also see that, why should they store my data, when they already HAVE That same data.. shouldn't they just call it 'caching' or some other kind of efficiency-improving technology?
And I support what they are doing.. I *hope* they win. (as long as they don't start saying 'this is OUR technology, and nobody can imitate us, or do stupid patents, or anything..). But I digress.
The problem is, the law says, (though IANAL) that they, as a commercial entity, do *not* have the right to make copies of 45,000 commercial titles without permission, and to stream those to people. Pretend for a moment that the end user does not have to prove they own the CD, and that they were broadcasting to everyone. This would clearly be illegal, a blatant violation of copyright.
So how, by the end user simply saying 'look, I have the CD' does it give them the right to do what they do?
As for mp3.com's stance on it.. they say they are providing a service to the consumer.. and I for one think that copyright has become TOO powerful, and that it should not give someone absolute control over copies of their work, only the right to fairly make money off it. Especially if they are massively distributing it and making it part of the popular culture anyway.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
It will come down to some strange debates, I bet.
Had they said 'Our software WILL send up the entire copy.. but first our database will check to see if it already has it, to save time' they might be in better shape.
Re:Please explain to me. (Score:2)
mp3.com does not have the right to transmit the entire Led Zeppelin collection to me, over the net. Why would they suddenly gain this right if I happen to own the album? They don't.. my owning the album has nothing to do with mp3.com's distribution rights, period.
As for public domain.. you are completely incorrect. A CD, once distributed, is most certainly *NOT* in the public domain. By definition, things in the Public Domain have *ABSOLUTELY NO* copyright protection, and anyone is free to do whatever they want with them.
Re:The accusations (Score:2)
Re:But they're not redistributing (Score:2)
The accusations (Score:2)
They claim that
a) mp3.com made copies of 45,000 commercial titles and placed them in their servers. This could be read several ways, but as a commercial venture, they may not have the rights to do this. They also do not have the rights to 'perform' these titles for anyone else, regardless of whether that someone else owns the music already or not.
Yes, the user really uploads their cd to mp3.com (Score:2)
cd to mp3.com. It's just that mp3.com has thought
of a rather good data-compression technology. Like all data compression it relys on caching common streams of data. mp3.com has common streams of data on their server resulting in rather ridiculous rates of compression, like compressing an entire cd down to 8 bytes.
It's all in how you look at it.
MP3 will probably win, because they planned to... (Score:2)
Because obviously, "Beam-It" was designed to provoke a lawsuit. It's so obvious, the first four seconds after I went to my.mp3.com, I said to myself "Huh, when's the lawsuit".
Obviously MP3.com has used the IPO money and a period of time to craft a winning strategey for just such a lawsuit, then released the most brazen thing thing they could think of to trick RIAA into suing them.
As for what masterful strategy they've thought of, that I do not know. I look forward to the trial!
Re:How fun (Score:2)
Careful, you just might just get sued. You are linking to MPAA who is sueing people just for linking to things.
It's kinda like me pointing to a store and saying "You could try to steal merchandise from that store." And then being arrested for theft. Never mind that nothing was stolen from the store, only that I pointed out the obvious.
Re:Yes, it is. Learn about shit before you post. (Score:2)
If it's not any different, then it would happen regardless of whether the my.mp3.com service exists or not. mp3.com doesn't make it any easier to pirate CD collections than borrowing it from a friend.
Re:Isn't this like CDDB? (Score:2)
Namby pamby? NANBY PAMBY?!? Dem be fightin' words ya thin liped tea drinkin' pansey. We kicked your ass twice before, we can do it again.
But in all seriousness I am consistantly shocked by the fact that the UK doesnt have a written Bill of Rights; by far the single greatest feature of the US Constitution. (Yeah yeah, it's amemendments, but they were immediate amemendments.)
Negativland (Score:2)
Personally, i think what they are doing is a waste of resources and time.. Plus it kills any type of freespeech/creative paths..
-BlahSnarto
'slash huh?'
Re:Isn't this like CDDB? (Score:2)
But most companies and people are fine here, really. There's just a few big bullies that delight in trying to ruin all our fun.
Re:you blame the wrong criminals (Score:2)
What they don't get is that their current model does not work in a world where we are increasingly getting away from music distribution as a tangible product that you can hold in your hand.
I have never tried my.mp3.com. Can anyone tell me if you can give out your password or something and allow anyone to listen to your CD's simultaneously? If that is possible, I would say that they do have some merit. In fact, it just eliminates the entire ripping process for those that want to listen to music on their computer..
Re:Please explain to me. (Score:2)
The main argument seems to be that we are able to produce our own copies of music, but other companies are not allowed to produce copies of the music for listening even if it is verified.
Apparently the RIAA is afraid of certain security problems with the my.MP3.com (well that and monopolizing all music).
Re:Please explain to me. (Score:2)
This seems to be what mp3.com is doing -- except they are doing it for the customer, and they just verify that they own the work they wish to listen to. Whether it is legal to do so is the dispute.
Isn't this like CDDB? (Score:2)
It's kinda like CDDB but remembers your CD collection. The worst part of this is that from the descriptions it only works with mp3's already on MP3.com so there is no issue of piracy beyond what MP3.com already contain.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the UK is the true land of the free. You yanks with your namby pamby constitution and your free speach, right to arms and all that are boging yourself down in pathetic law suits, injunctions etc.
This law suit along with the the DeCSS one is not about real issues, it's about paranoid's seeing the bottom line thretened and back into the corner, pointing fully loaded lawyers at everyone that 'looks at them funny' and screaming for their mothers.
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
I don't see how. Borrowing a CD and burning a copy for yourself is the only copyright violation in that case. Therefore, you would be liable for burning the CD, if RIAA decided to go after you. And anyway, I said that the first issue was relatively weak. The second issue - verification of ownership - is significantly more damning, IMO. MP3.com simply does now require users to demonstrate ownership in any meaningful way. Therefore, MP3.com may be distributing copyrighted material to people who aren't licensed to use it.
--
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
In this case, "our members'" means "RIAA members," a.k.a. performers. It's not about making a list of what CDs people have, it's about compiling a library of MP3's and streaming them over the Internet to anyone who says they have the CD. I hate to say it, but RIAA may actually have the law on their side here. IANAL, but even the broadest definition of "fair use" would not cover distribution of MP3 files, IMO. It's a good bet that MP3.com will lose this one.
(offtopic) what year are you at State? A lot of my friends from high school went there...
--
Re:Please explain to me. (Score:2)
Nobody disputes that. The problem is that MP3.com does not have a right to send you that data. Yes, you can rip a CD to MP3 and carry it with you; no, MP3.com cannot send you the MP3's just because you claim to own the disc.
More to the point--regardless of what they say is legal or illegal, the information contained on a CD once distributed can be considered in the public domain. It's data--once it's out there, it's out there, and there's no way to recover it.
Unfortunately, we need to regard what they say is legal or illegal; that's how the system works. Yeah, the system sucks sometimes, but it's what we're stuck with. And I think there does need to be at least some legal protection for creative work. Of course, that's just my opinion.
--
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
I'm convinced that YOU don't get it. Not even close
Odd, since I agree with you about 95%. Much more so than other slashdotters.
Technology has changed the landscape in much the same fashion as machine guns have changed warfare. The RIAA needs to wake up and realize that they can no longer succeed in spoon feeding us overpriced CDs while paying so-called artists like Michael Jackson millions for "music" he hasn't even created yet.
Taste is not an issue, and has absolutely no bearing on the distribution issue. There are still mega-selling, mega-pop teen type acts such as Britney Spears, Nine Inch Nails, Christina Aguilera, and Metallica who still sells millions and millions of records, so your assertion that people do not buy Michael Jackson type music is only true in that they have shifted to different artists of the same genre. It is simply not true that people are moving away from teen-type, mega-pop music - it is probably stronger than ever right now. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The music which has the best chance of dying to due to online distribution is inide music, since the margins for it are absolutely diminutive, and online distribution will drive prices even lower. The reason I have a vested interest in trying to stop online piracy of music is because indie music is by far my interest and it makes me sick to see my favorite indie artists not get paid the money they deserve.
I can't tell how they're going to succeed in making money in the future, but I have at least one viable concept: would you pay ~$10-20 per month to have unlimited access to their entire library of recorded music, without restriction or limits, in your home, in your car, and by wireless walkman, even if you knew their hardware was secure and you couldn't copy it off digitally onto something else (to prevent people from "sharing" a subscription)? I know I would!
Obviously I would pay $10-$20/month for the complete collection. Heck, I would pay that much simply to get the access to every recording Deutsche Grammaphon released in 1967. See, you're on my side: you're willing to pay. That's my point. 99.44% of online users look at online distribution not as a new, innovative means to distribute music (as it does indeed have the potential to be), but as a way to never pay for music again (and as long as people have that attitude, they will be disappointed.)
This is but one idea that would do an end run around the machine gun nest of illegal MP3 distribution, yet still provide a fair trade of money for product for them and the artists. (I envision a micropayment system for the artists could be set up, to pay them for every time their songs are accessed.)
ABSOLUTELY! People look at the music industry and see them fighting against MP3, and assume they're against on-line music distribution in genral (and perhaps people misinterpreted my post the same way). Nothing could be further from the truth - the music companies would benefit from online distribution immensely. But there NEEDS to be a proprietary format for it, so it can't be stolen. MP3's are NOT an acceptable format for the industry because they can be stolen. It would be absolutely foolish for the record companies to officially release their catalogs on MP3, because the existing MP3 user base has proven itself to be completely untrustworthy due to piracy.
Thanks for the breath of frssh air - your response is by far the most clueful post I've read on slashdot about MP3's.
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
I am a middle-aged adult, and I am not a criminal. I like mp3 because it allows me to burn a whole lot of songs, over a hundred tracks, onto a single CD. Wouldn't you rather carry around one CD than ten or fifteen? The relatively low quality of the playback system's speakers makes the sound quality difference with mp3s insignificant. And if I leave one of my mp3 CDs in a hot car and it gets ruined, then I'm only out a couple of bucks. At work, I can copy a bunch of tracks onto the hard drive of my PC without wasting gigabytes of disc space. And all this is perfectly legal. I have never stolen one single track of music. Every one of my mp3s I've made came from a CD I bought and own.
This is all perfectly fine. I have no qualms with MP3 for personal use, but I find that many people (esp. younger people) use MP3 solely to pirate music.
I just don't see how you can make any bootleg-proof scheme for on-line distribution that allows me to carry around the end product like I can now with ordinary CDs.
There are countless ways. One which springs to mind is to have a hardware dongle and a music file specifically generated for that dongle. You would have the same dongle on your car, home, office, etc.
At any rate it is my conviction, and it has been for decades, that a certain amount of illicit copying and sharing of music seves as a major stimulus to the music industry. The argument that "if listeners can get it for free, they won't buy it" is bogus. After all, when you listen to music on the radio, isn't that free? And yet all music companies and all recording artists are always very eager to get their music played on the radio, not just because of the radio royalties, but also because that's how their customers find out about it.
Yes, the radio is one way to find out about music, and yes it free, but radio has commercials, and is not play-on-demand. For the listeners whose musical tastes are actually well covered on the radio (not me!) many still want to be able to listen to something on demand, and listen to something commercial-free. For many people, radio is effectively a SUBSTITUTE for buying music, which is fine. How many people, who listen to e.g. oldies stations go out and buy the music they hear? Probably not many (compared to, say, a jazz station).
The same goes for this mp3 trading that is so popular these days. People trading mp3s hear musicians they otherwise would never have heard of, and if they like what they hear, they go to the store to buy more CDs by those musicians.
For every person who goes out and buys the CD after getting the MP3, there is at least one person who gets JUST the MP3. I've met people who cannot even fathom paying for music, and many people on this website have the same attitude (read the comments and count how many times people have said "I haven't bought a CD in two years").
The difference between people making CD's into MP3's, and the music companies distributing MP3's, is that their is a certain value lost from getting the MP3 instead of the CD. You lose the attractive presentation, the cover work, the high sound quality, etc., etc. But if record companies actually distributed MP3's (only), the MP3 would be THE PRODUCT. There would be no value lost by getting the MP3 because there is nothing more to have. How many people would buy an MP3 when they could get the EXACT same product from the internet for free? I would, and you would, but many people woudln't. This is different from "home taping" and the like, because you are not getting merely a copy, but the actual product itself. That's the danger.
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
This problem would be solved by a software-like licensing scheme, where you pay a small price for the physical media, and a larger price for the license of listening to the music.
I do not believe that copyleft-type music would work. It is extremely expensive to produce albums, and I don't see where that money would come from. Although artists could make up the losses from touring et al, records are still by far the primary vehicle of music, and need to be preserved above all.
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
Re:MP3's (Score:2)
I personally would much rather pay $15-$20 for the CD and get the artwork, case, booklet, etc. I own over 1,000 CD's (and not one single pirated MP3 or cassette), and I consider my collection "attractive" - especially boxed sets and the like, and is one of my prized possessions. It is one of the centerpieces of my home. I do not consider a hard drive with gigabytes of stolen music to be "atrractive" or something to be proud of. Above all, I have the satisfaction of having had supported the artists who produced the music, rather than have stolen from them (95% of the artists I listen to are indie).
It would be nice to be able to pay $1 and download a song, but there is no way that the industry can trust the consumer with the MP3 - thanks to all of the pirates who steal music currently. Probably it will end up working out like software and you will have to enter a registration number to play a song. A real pain, but when you have so many pirates running around who steal everything in sight and refuse to pay, that's what you have to live with.
This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:2)
Perhaps, but this is not a case of people pirating mp3s and the RIAA jumping in to "protect the copyrights of the innocent". This is them attacking a company which has sought to provide a service to people and while doing so took many steps along the way to protect copyrights. Mp3.com does not give access to these mp3s to anyone, you have to own the cd first.
Personally, I use the service to listen to 128kbp streams while at school where there is band-width-o-plenty. I think its probably one of the most nifty services I've run into and best of all, it helps sell cds. The "instant listening" feature on the service allows anyone who buys a cd to start listening to it instantly. If anything, this service is helping the RIAA. Why they can't see that is confounding.
And I never actually said that the RIAA is anti-technology, I merely said that in this case they were fighting it. They certainly have been behind new technologies such as cd's as you mentioned. However the big difference between cds and mp3s is this: The RIAA chose cds as the next generation in music distribution, Consumers chose mp3s as the next generation in music distribution. It would seem that the RIAA's posisition on technology is "Fight anything we did not originate."
This news needs to be made mainstream (Score:2)
I fully support mp3.com (and the EFF defending against the MPAA, etc.) in their quest to harbor in a new era of digital audio and video, but how much of the public knows about this?
Let's face it, public perception is key to suits like these. If the well-known RIAA (and MPAA in their case) can convince the public a bunch of hackers are trying to stela the stuff which will ultimately raise prices, the majority will side with the big guys.
To people like my mother, or computer illiterate friends, a hacker is a bad person. Is a hacker responsible for it? Well, no, but unless the whole story gets out there no one will ever know it. And unfortunately, most major news services have reporters who fit into this same under-tech-educated majority ofthe public.
Someone needs to find a way to bring these topics, in their entire truth, to the public in a manner they can understand. The RIAA has the power to do it. Do we?
My mother just doesn't read slashdot. Does yours?
Re:Yes, it is. Learn about shit before you post. (Score:2)
> made, because *you have to buy physical CDs*.
> If you do not own the CD *you CAN'T listen
> to the music*
I'm sorry, but there is an _amazingly_ large difference between sending their server a few numbers and actually owning the CD.
At the very least, there is nothing to stop people from going to their friends, saying "Hey, can I borrow your CD collection tonight?"
*POOF*, they now "own" all of those CDs?
Also, it certainly can't be long before some enterprising individual(s) breaks whatever encryption is used to send the CD serial #s to MP3.com's servers, and they (and whoever gets their software) suddenly own any music they want! Now _that_ is pretty threatening, and quite a legitimate reason to worry about something.
As for a lawsuit? Well, They could go for the tried and true Physical Intimidation method...
Dean: "Alright then, let's empty out your pockets."
Homer: "Make me."
Dean: "Proffesor Rocco, Chancellor Knuckles..."
(heheh, those crazy finger-breakin' academic types...)
Re:But they're not redistributing (Score:2)
This is still just intimidation (Score:2)
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:2)
I think there are a couple of different things to consider. For example, radio stations and internet broadcasting companies do pay license fees for every instance in which copyrighted material is played. The RIAA has the right to inspect play lists if they believe a station is in arrears. Pirate radio operators have been prosecuted for not paying RIAA fees as well as FCC fees. Many of the really great early internet radio stations were taken down when the RIAA finally caught on and made it impossible for non-revenue producing stations to stay on the air.
On the other hand, there have been valid arguments for the theory of Intellectual Property Proxy. Which is to say, that if you can prove you own something in real space, then you automatically own it in data space. Bank transfers and stock transactions are good examples of existing intellectual property proxies. You can buy, sell, vote and hold stock without ever seeing or providing a stock certificate. You can make bank transfers online without touching cash. Those arguing this position state that the implied user license allows MP3 to broadcast music for which the user has already proven to have paid a license.
Mr.Attack has already provided valid reasons for why that argument is unlikely to hold up in court. A tertiary and possibly more damning argument for MP3 is that they are providing the material in a format different than the user has a license to use. It is virtually the equivalent of having a site connected to a laser disc player which reads your disk title, then sends you a VHS tape of the movie. Could you make a VHS copy legally? Absolutely. Can someone else send you a copy, based on the fact that you inserted a disk for less than 2 minutes? Nope. Read the innocuous FBI warning. Could you data warehouse the information, then request it in a different format? Probably, but even then there is probably some fee due to someone.
Since MP3.com is not acting as a data warehouse; i.e., the user is not uploading the CD for conversion or storage, then it would appear that they are indeed acting as a broadcaster. As such, according to the letter of the law, they are liable for broadcast license fees. And since MP3 is distributing the music in a different format and there is no data warehouse of the user's licensed material, it would appear as though MP3 may be violating copyright law with the new services.
No, it isn't. Learn about shit before you post. (Score:3)
Please get a clue.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:3)
| I know, and most serious music collectors I
| know, realize MP3 for what it is - piracy, and
| avoid it like the plague, not because they do
| not understand how to use it, but because they
| realize it is illegal.
"Most consumers" haven't chosen MP3. True enough, but that has nothing to do with the legality of the technology. The techmology's no more illegal than any other storage medium. Can you come up with a compelling reason it *is* illegal? If you can, can you come up with a compelling reason that the same logic can't be applied to technologies like, say, CDR, cassette tape, and (S)VHS?
Most consumers haven't adopted MP3 because it's new, and there isn't much in the way of stereo equipment to play them on. Computer / home entertainment center convergence is NOT here yet.
And then there's the issue of simply not knowing about the format, and the other issue that easily downloadable MP3 files are low quality compared to a well-mastered CD (MP3 at anything you'd want to download over a 56K modem is less than impressive on a high quality sound system).
| The MP3 format is fundamentally flawed from a
| commercial standpoint because it has no copy
| protection.
Neither do the two most popular home audio formats today (cassette tape and CD).
| There is absolutely no way that they are going
| to release their entire library on a
| non-copyprotected format.
They *already* have. Several of them, in fact!
| Second, and nobody ever mentions this, the MP3
| format is not as high quality as a regular CD.
Like I also said (and have said many times before), MP3 at modem bandwidth doesn't sound that great to an audiophile. it'd be interesting to see what it sounded like at high bit rates from the original source material (e.g. not a CD).
| Why would the record companies choose to have
| quality suffer?
They still distribute music on cassette tape. And are the digital formats they're working on higher quality than a CD?
ooh (Score:3)
Re:Yes, the user really uploads their cd to mp3.co (Score:3)
If they don't have the album in their server already, there is no way for me to send it to them.
A 'signature' cannot be considered compression.
You are NOT making a copy, and sending it to mp3.com for later retrieval. You are simply saying 'I have this CD and want to listen to it later'.
Please explain to me. (Score:3)
With Beam-It, does the end user actually encode their CD's and UPLOAD them to mp3.com, for later streaming... or does mp3.com simply say 'okay.. they have this CD according to our software.. so we have license to send the music back to them'.
If the data is actually being set up BY The users....mp3.com has a good case. they are providing data warehousing and retrieval.
If mp3.com is doing the latter, they have a problem.
You see.. although you, personally, are allowed to make copies of titles you own for your own use.. this does not grant everyone in the world license to send that same information to you.
mp3.com probably does *not* have the right to stream all of Thriller to you, simply because you happen to own the album.
Re:Yes, it is. Learn about shit before you post. (Score:3)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even WITHOUT my.mp3.com, couldn't you rip and encode someone's CD collection ANYWAYS if you borrow it? What makes this any different?
Applying software like EULAs to music (Score:3)
Hillary repeatedly refers to the "license" you have to use the Music. I don't remember reading or signing any license agreement before buying a CD! How can they say that usage is governed by any "license" other than standard Copyright law?
Does standard Copyright law prohibit redistribution of copyrighted material to people who already own that copyrighted material? Or is it that (as the RIAA asserts) you never "own" copyrighted material -- the best you can ever do is "license" it -- and what that license is is up to the copyright owner (who apparently doesn't even have to state it before you buy it).
The example I use is this: Radio stations have to pay royalties because they broadcast to people who don't own the copyrighted material. However in the case of my.mp3.com, the content was only being shared with people who already owned the copyrighted material.
Technically mp3.com does NOT profit from the content directly (since the user already owns the content), they profit from the SERVICE they provide (namely, allowing you access to your music library from anywhere).
Obviously this is comes down to interpretation of copyright law, which means this battle will almost definitely end up in court -- and the outcome could be very important to all forms of licensing and copyright control (e.g. EULAs and the UCITA).
On a second note -- I think it's interesting that the RIAA didn't pursue their normal charge of "contributory infringement" like what they are accusing Napster of. For example, I would have expected them to show how one user could upload their CDs, share the account with another user, and allow that user to listen to the music. Now obviously that is a pretty dubious charge, but it's what they typically use against most companies who create tools that make piracy of music very easy. I wonder if this signals a change in their strategy -- a push to assert even MORE control over how copyrighted content is used.
Re:How fun (Score:3)
MP3's (Score:3)
Question -- do MP3's really cut into record sales? To me, DLing an MP3 seems more like listening to the radio than buying a CD -- I like the cool booklets and case art and will gladly pay $15 a pop for them. You can only play an MP3 on your computer or Rio, and though you can put one on a CDR and play it on a stereo, CDR's are ugly, unreliable, and don't always work in every CD player (at least in my experience).
Here's a case for MP3's though. I like certain kinds of foreign music, but I can't find that stuff for sale ANYWHERE. So the only thing I can do is DL the MP3's from Napster. I think it's fair to do this because I am not depriving anyone of income.
Since people sometimes can't find the CD they're looking for, they should set up something on the Internet where you can order an MP3 license or something. For a US dollar, you should be able to buy the right to have an MP3 of a certain song. Of course, you wouldn't have the right to post it on FTP, but you'd be able to have the MP3 and put it on CDR so you can play it in your car. There's LOTS of stuff I'd pay money for if I just could.
Of course no one in the recording industry would EVER do that.
Take care,
Steve
RIAA is asking for 68 billion dollars!!! (Score:3)
It's all about control of distribution.. (Score:3)
Historically, all forms of electronic mass media and broadcast (such as radio, TV, records, tapes, CD's, etc.) have had physical limitations (limited radio / TV stations, cost of media production, etc.) The Internet represents the first medium with no physical restrictions and virtually no barriers to entry. Therefore it is impossible to dominate the Internet as CBS and NBC dominated radio in the early-mid 20th century. (for example, they sometimes put small local stations out of business by overpowering their signals--this is before the FCC). All other forms of media have followed similar suit, with different tactics respectively to fight for control of their medium. The result is that traditional mass media is controlled by gigantic corporations who stand between content producers and their audience. (of course with TV, they often control both content and broadcast, operating under a profit through advertising model).
With the arrival of the Internet as a popular medium, the physical barriers that allowed tight control of the producer->audience have been made obsolete. Before, musicians had to sign up with a big label to get known and get their music out. Now they can set up a web server in the back room.. The corporations and organizations who control the current system of limited physical distribution, yet do not themselves produce content, are essentially obsolete. They are now trying to stall their demise by erecting non-physical barriers to protect their business model (IP law, lawsuits).
In closing my opinion, I would like to make a few predictions regarding the future of electronic media distribution:
1.) Business entities that control, own, and manage distribution of others IP, but themselves produce no content will gradually disappear or drastically change their business models (such as the RIAA, MPAA, major labels, etc.)
2.) Producers of IP will create individual businesses around their IP to increase profits. (ex. musicians selling their own music).
3.) New specialized businesses will meet the auxiliary needs of producers that were previously provided them by large labels (such as studio time, production management, advertising, arranging concerts, etc.)
4.) Producers will adopt whatever form of IP management they feel best suits their audience and business -- anything from a "give away music and sell T-shirts" approach to forms of pay-per-view.
5.) Consumers will be better off as the popularity / availability of content will be judged by the market rather than by the big players who decide for us.
6.) Appreciation of the arts will become more diverse.
7.) Piracy will decrease drastically as there will be little incentive for it.
8.) We'll finally see an end to these ridiculous lawsuits. (-:
Shafted (Score:4)
Legal analysts are pleased as well: "We thought after Y2K flopped we'd be out of work come March 1st, but now we've got plenty to do" said Dir T. Lawyer.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4)
But my having a CD does *not* give mp3 the right to broadcast it to me. Yes, it gives *me* the right to make copies, etc... for my own personal use, but in this case
Just consolidate all the suits (Score:4)
If only old media could adapt to new media--
Re:This is sad, but I think we all saw it coming (Score:4)
Considering the RIAA brought out the compact disc (or even hi-fi analog, for that matter) they are clearly not anti-technology. The record companies want to go on-line even more than consumers do, because they would save big time money in the process (not only not having to produce physical media, but not having to go through distribution - they could sell direct).
Everybody wants on-line distribution. The companies do. The artists do. The listeners do. The only people who are stopping for it are the pirates who steal anything that can be digitized, and spit on any sort of copyright or IP law.
Comment removed (Score:5)
The Ultimate Compression Algorithm? (Score:5)
It's pretty clear that if you were actually uploading the data, then RIAA most likely lose this suit. MP3.com would be operating a remote backup server, and nothing more.
But you aren't uploading the data to MP3.com...or are you? Forgive me if I get details wrong, but I seem to recall reading about compression systems based on Huffman coding, where the Huffman tree is predetermined and not transmitted. Common symbols are replaced by smaller symbols, based on a predetermined scheme. It's nominally a substiution cipher, substituting smaller symbols for larger ones.
By now you can see where I'm going. Beam-It uploads very highly compressed copies of your CDs. The compression works by replacing a known symbol (the audio data on the CD) with a much smaller one. (the same catalog number that CDDB uses)
If MP3.com's lawyers can explain that to the judge, they might have a chance.
-Zandr
The RIAA looks correct on this. (Score:5)
Yes, owning the CD gives the user every right to MP3 it for their own use. There is nothing harmful about the user downloading an MP3 with Beam-It if they already own the CD.
But for the Beam-It to work, MP3.com had to amass a huge database of commercial music, it seems. They don't have the license to re-distribute it, regardless if the listeners have the right to receive it.
If a person without a liquor license makes a habit of selling alchohol in a commercial setting, it doesn't matter if they only sell to people over 21. Selling drugs to a diplomat with diplomatic immunity will still get you thrown in jail. These examples are a stretch, I know, but the point is MP3.com was redistributing copyrighted materials which they did not have permission to redistribute.
Of course, I could be wrong and it's possible mp3.com did not redistribute anything they didn't have a right to redistribute.
Before y'all get your panties in a twist... (Score:5)
In short, I think the RIAA might actually have a case. If only they'd stick to pursuing those lawsuits in which they do have a case, rather than attacking CSS-auth and LiViD, we'd all be a lot happier.
--
letter links (Score:5)
The response is here
Some Additional coverage (Score:5)
If your interested, I've compiled a quick list of links pertaining to this case below
You can find the mp3.com [mp3.com] press release here. [mp3.com]which includes the full text of the suit that was filed.
Cnet [cnet.com] has coverage here [cnet.com].
And last, but not least, if you like zdnet.com [zdnet.com], then you can get their story here [zdnet.com].
Letter from RIAA CEO to their Members.... (Score:5)
The following was directed to all RIAA members by Hilary Rosen.
I regret to inform you that a suit was filed this afternoon against MP3.Com for copyright violations.
I regret us having to file this litigation because, as you know, I do not view litigation as the best means to a business strategy. I had hoped that we would have a different result and tried to work with Michael Robertson over the past few days to encourage license negotiations.
He ultimately refused to negotiate and therefore, a lawsuit seems to be the only way to resolve this.
I continue to believe that the best way to protect our rights on line is by your continuing to do creative deals, being in the on-line business aggressively and modeling good licensing approaches to Internet companies.
I know you agree.
Attached pleased find my letter to Michael Robertson as well as a useful Q and A for you to use as you confront questions about this action.
All the best,
Hilary Rosen
President and CEO
Recording Industry Association of America