Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Sues MP3.com

Posted by michael on from the this-is-getting-old dept.

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?

7 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Re:ooh by clifyt · · Score: 5

    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

  2. The Ultimate Compression Algorithm? by n6mod · · Score: 5

    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.
  3. The RIAA looks correct on this. by Pont · · Score: 5

    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.

  4. Before y'all get your panties in a twist... by Mister+Attack · · Score: 5
    You should probably know what this lawsuit is about before automatically denouncing it. The RIAA may actually be on solid legal grounds here. The gist of the lawsuit is that MP3.com is now streaming MP3 files to anyone who has ever put the corresponding CD in their computer and registered it with MP3.com. Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that the RIAA might be justified in this lawsuit. Even the broadest interpretation of the "fair use" doctrine does not allow you to distribute copyrighted material to another party, even if it can be verified that the other party has a license to use that material. The RIAA will probably attack MP3.com on two grounds: first, that their verification system is weak; I can borrow a CD, pop it in my computer, give it back, and still be able to download the streaming MP3's. Second, even if it can be unambiguously determined that everyone who downloads a copyrighted MP3 from MP3.com does, in fact, have a license for that material, MP3.com is still on shaky legal grounds in that they are distributing copyrighted material without a license.

    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.
    --

  5. letter links by acarlisle · · Score: 5

    The RIAA's letter to MP3.com is here .

    The response is here .

  6. Some Additional coverage by Cyberllama · · Score: 5

    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 .

  7. Letter from RIAA CEO to their Members.... by DrD2 · · 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

    --
    DrD