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?
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?"
| Most consumers have NOT chosen MP3. Most adults
| 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?
-- Rick
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
The only people who Don't Get It are the people who pirate MP3's. It is THESE people who are anti-technology and are preventing large scale online distribution from really happening. With the massive number of 31337 mp3 warez d000dz on the internet who insist on stealing music instead of paying for it, the RIAA realizes that it is suicide to put its property into small, easily transferred, unencrypted files and depend on the trust of the consumers for compensation. Because of all of the people who steal music by pirating MP3's, the RIAA realized that money cannot be made from this method. So they are currently investigating proprietary, closed methods of online music distribution. So to people who pirate MP3's: thanks. You already cost on an open music standard, and if you keep it up, you will cost us online distribution altogether.
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.
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