Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues MP3.com
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?
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!
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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 $.50 for that backup CD because he doesn't want it anymore. That CD becomes my property. I can't really prove it's mine, other than the fact that I have possession of it. I can't prove that it's a legitimate copy at all. How then can MP3.com truly verify ownership? Do I have to repurchase my entire CD collection in order to have access to it online? I'm sure the RIAA would love that since it means they get to further rip off consumers.
If I can obtain the CD long enough to put it in my drive, then I could just as easily rip the tracks, convert them to MP3s, and upload them to MP3.com. Doing this would only require access to the CD for a few minutes, but would give me permanent access to the copy. I don't see how MP3.com's service is in any way contributing to piracy. If any piracy occurs, it occurs independently of MP3.com's service.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I've read the letters and the text of the lawsuit, and I still think it's stupid. MP3.com hasn't done anything to allow piracy or rip anyone off. If any piracy is taking place, it's being done independently of MP3.com's service.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
'Hmmm, I guess it'd be legal for someone to prove they were at a workstation with M$ word on it, therefore MP3.com can legally distribute it to any computer they use now'.
:)
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?
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Have these people ever heard of LIBRARIES? You know, places where you can go and check out books, cd's and videos for FREE and listen to them? I can go to the SF Public Library right now and buy a CD that I don't own, listen to it, and bring it back. I've paid not one dime for it (except in taxes to the city, which in this case I pay happily for library services.) Why do we not see the 3000 year old institution of the library decried as a threat to the income of authors?
If they have even temporary possession of it they can easily copy it onto cassette tape if they want, without any help from mp3.com. In other words, the mp3.com service does not really create any new opportunities for piracy. Or are you proposing that stereo equipment with built-in CD player and cassette recorders should be banned also? They can be abused in precisely the same way.
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
You're overlooking the possibility that data warehousing is precisely what mp3.com *is* doing.
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
The RIAA was caught with their pants down. They got big and fat off CD profits, and just assumed that the world would wait until they were good and ready to wake up and exploit this "internet" thing.
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
that someone would do a nice article on who the RIAA actually are so the people that read the article will realize why the rest of us get so pissed off when we hear about them suing someone. The RIAA is composed of a very small handful of recording companies, the companies that own most of the distrobution channels of music and do everything they can to keep a strangle hold on it. When the whole audio CD-ROM format was just a twingle in some engineer's eye, they could have doubled the quality of CD audio but the RIAA decided not to give consumers TOO good of quality music recordings. Mostly because they were weary of the popularity of CDs. They were right, who would ever buy a shiney five inch disk?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
O, Canada,
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.
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
They need to get a clue, cluetrain style:
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
As someone said the other day... Hacker logic does not work in Law.
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.
All it sends is a few bytes, like a CDDB signature, to mp3.com, it does NOT send any audio data at all, period. And no, a representation of data is not enough.
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.
Yes. You own the album, and *you* can make all the copies you want to use personally. That does not mean that mp3.com has the right to distribute that same music to you. It's a subtle point, and I'm not sure how to state it more clearly.
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.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but what does this have to do with the fact that mp3.com made copies of 45,000 commercial titles without permission?
Perhaps broadcasting is the wrong word. How about 'performing'? They are not allowed to perform that music for you.
The accusations are fairly clear... all should read the official document.
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, every user of beam-it actually uploads their
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.
If I were betting, I'd guess the lawsuit will go in favor of MP3.com. Why?
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!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>(So? I got a little link happy. Sue me!!)
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.
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.
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...
:)
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.)
You think this is fucked up.. You should read about what happened to the guys in Negativland..
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?'
"Us yanks" are fine... Some of our more rich corperations that will fight tooth and nail to stay that way and steamroll any new thecnology that gets in their way. ;-)
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.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Because the RIAA is more interested in litigating and monopolizing than real innovation.
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..
They will get their day in court and we will see. New technology sometimes makes for logical changes in law that allow for innovation instead of protectionism.
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).
If you took your CD and put it on the web for your own personal reasons without allowing access to anyone else, that is acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
--
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...
--
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.
--
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.
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.
The LP -> CD issue is tricky. You paid for the music already, and the record company has more than broken even on any LP which was successful enough to get a CD re-issue. There is some cost to re-master it to CD, but that cost is much less than producing something from scratch. Sometimes there are value-added features such as extra tracks and the like. But for the most part, it does seem to make some sense that you would get a discount when you buy the CD. You shouldn't get it for free because there IS some cost.
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.
When you capture the audio, you only get one program's interpretation of it, not the raw data itself. This isn't "the product", it is a copy of it. As long as the industry can distinguish between the product and a copy, everything is fine.
You better believe that people do MP3's instead of buying CD's. I've heard from many people who haven't bought a CD in a couple of years or more, because they just steal it from the net. Especially younger people (e.g. college students with dorm bandwidth).
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.
The RIAA has yet to "get it". They are slowly destroying themselves in a flury of anti-technology litigation. I challenge you to name 1 company/organization that has ever met with success by fighting technology. It just doesn't happen. The sooner that the RIAA realizes that the consumers are the ones with money and are therefore the ones that call the shots, the more likely they will be to salvage some shred of what may be left of the music industry if they keep up at this.
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?
> You *do not* have access to every song ever
> 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...)
Redistributing is exactly what they are doing. Imagine: I give you a phone call and ask if you own a certain movie (lets say The Matrix). You tell me you do. Great. I tell you that I work for a public access television station, but that for you to recieve the station, I'm going to send you, and only you, a filter box that you can install on any tv you want, then you can watch the station. Once you have the box in place, I go into the station's production studio and pop my copy of The Matrix into the vcr, and BROADCAST it to you. See where I'm going? mp3.com may own a legit copy of a work. You might own a copy also. But those copies both come with an implied, and in the case of videotape an explicit rule that neither they, nor you can broadcast via a private or public medium, the work in question. mp3.com's only real hope is getting a judge who wants to shake up the current system, because under current law, I don't think they have a leg to stand on here.
How many MP3 sites are out there? Hundreds, at least. How many private servers? Tens, hundreds of thousands. Any team of lawyers will not be dumb enough to think they can sue them all. All they could possibly be after is spreading FUD. And considering the effort it takes to pull one lawsuit through, we shouldn't expect to see any serious impact of this until oooh, say, 2025 or so. Needless to say, MP3 has negligible chances of existing for that long as a predominant format.
// zyqqh
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.
----I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.--
Please get a clue.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Hmmmm... suing a COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE site and depriving musicians of a valuable channel for their works. Yeah.. this is gonna go over well... about as well as a lead balloon. Let me be the first to welcome mp3.com to the battle. Bad move for the music industry - they just nailed an entire business. It's not just individuals and "DOEs" anymore, they're sparing no expense!
No. It's not how I look at it. It is very clear.
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'.
Somethign needs clarifying here.
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.
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?
From reading the suit, it appears that the RIAA is trying to obtain software-EULA-like protection for audio CDs. For example, they are saying you can't use the music for commercial purposes at all -- even if you aren't violating copyright(which they are not doing -- only copyright owners can access the material).
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.
This article is full of false statements designed to prey on the ignorant. You can believe anything you want, but we all know it for what it is. Stop blaming the worlds problems on an identifiable and stereotyped group.
We all knew this was coming.
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
If you read the text of the suit at mp3.com, it shows that the RIAA is asking for 150,000 per work. If their are roughly 10 songs per cd, and as the RIAA claims, 45,000 songs, then 10*45000*150000= 67.5 billion dollars. Chew on that for a while.
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. (-:
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.
No. I can tell mp3.com what CD's I bought.. and they are free to ask. ,copies are not sent to mp3.com, I believe.... they only check to see what you have and then send out of their archive.
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
...into one big Official Entertainment Industry Lawsuit of 2000 case. Then we can take away all the miscreant technologies with one foul swoop!
If only old media could adapt to new media--
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
On the face of it, MP3.com is really stretching the notion of fair use. There's a different way to look at this, though. It's some strained logic, but stay with me here...
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
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Sorry if I'm not towing the party line, but if I've read the situation clearly, I think the RIAA has a strong case.
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.
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.
--
The RIAA's letter to MP3.com is here .
.
The response is here
If your interested, I've compiled a quick list of links pertaining to this case below
You can find the mp3.com press release here.which includes the full text of the suit that was filed.
Cnet has coverage here.
And last, but not least, if you like zdnet.com, then you can get their story here .
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
DrD