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?
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.
Why the hell does everyone think THEY know whats good for the musicians? Im my part time, I run sound design resources for professional musicians (or anyone else that can afford to waste big bucks on that equipment) as well as do my own Music. Every PROFESSIONAL (ie., they are getting payed and not just for playing frat parties) I've talked with seems to have mixed feelings about this all. Some of them use MP3 to get their music out to their audience, but that is their choice how they distribute it, no one elses.
Before one talks about how this is effecting musicians, you better be one or work directly for one.
BTW this stuff is rediculious...I down loaded the software when it came out and I thought to myself, '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'. Then again, Sun wouldn't complain about someone doing this with StarOffice so I'd be safe (if I actually installed it at work).
clif
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