Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com Countersues RIAA
Nik4 writes "As per this news item on Yahoo, MP3.com has filed a law suit against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its president, Hilary Rosen. More details are available here on the MP3.com site. MP3.com is complaining of defamation, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices.
" At this point, I think it's safe to say that the MP3 will be locked up in court for quite some time - and in the meantime, MP3 will become more and more the standard.
(There is an Open Source MP4 encoder/decoder for Linux, now. The sooner people start taking that seriously, the better.)
However, the RIAA's bid for total domination of the digital market can't hold up to -real- scrutiny. This countersuit may produce questions in the media and the public that the RIAA don't want asked, let alone answered. That can only help free formats and haten the demise of the software patent.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Scroll down a bit and you'll see!
As far as I know, all of the MP3's on MP3.com are freely available to the public, and are not goverened by any of RIAA's silly ideas. It's not like you can download the lastest top-40 junk from MP3.com.
It's as if RIAA is just attacking a sound FORMAT as opposed to actual copyright violations. Sick! Good luck to MP3.com.
calling a shot. Troll day is full of miracles.
Exactly. MP3.com *only* distributes legal mp3s. That's why they are suing for libel (among other things) against the RIAA which makes out *all* mp3 users as 'music pirates'. IANAL, but the RIAA lawsuit seems completely groundless, but is completely typical of large coporations.
What do you do when you can no longer compete? In the old days, your company might go bankrupt. Now, you can just file frivolous lawsuits against the competition.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
(There is an Open Source MP4 encoder/decoder for Linux, now. The sooner people start taking that seriously, the better.)
/.ers hate to hear it, Linux is still a small piece of the pie. All the frat kids that go to mp3.com are on Windows. (Oh and mp4.com points to mp3.com.)
As much as
I tend to agree with Mr. Hemos here that by the time this battle is over, the war will have been fought and won around them. Mp3 is here, it's popular and it works for me.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
The EFF should look closely at the documents in this case. The DeCSS case is almost exactly the same.
Opening a libel case against the MPAA should be fun. And before anybody says it can't be done, look at the McLibel case. The defendent didn't win, but they cost McDonalds a slew of money, and opened up a lot of information that McDonalds didn't want publicised.
It sure is nice to see a company with some cash fighting against the silly copyright-mongers. But I have a nagging suspicion that Mp3.com is completely non-ideological, or even doesn't "get it" the way Red Hat does.
In other words, MP3.com will one day be using laws and questionable tactics to leverage their name. Does anyone know if I'm right here? Is MP3.com fighting the good fight, or just trying to benefit themselves?
On the one hand, in this case it amounts to the same thing: their economic incentive is pushing them to defend a possibly brighter future from the owners of a dark past. On the other hand, who out there has the MP3 business model which works more like Linux, more like the GPL: value adding services/packaging/quality guarantees around "free" and "open" products?
Where is Open Source music, and who is willing to fight for it?
Take a look at the MPEG-4 Structured Audio: Developer Tools for info on MP-4.
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
kayaking
Mp3.com wants this to be a jury trial. That is definitely a good move if they get it. They can play on the David against Goliath idea. Juries tend to favor that position. I think Mp3.com is aiming for a younger jury and the RIAA will want a jury which is as old as possible with a big enough bias against modern technology. I leave it to funnier people then me to come up with some great lines we should hear during the jury selections and the rest of the trial. :-)
It seems that the RIAA has tried to bully some of the investment bankers that MP3.com is doing business with. If they can get it to stick in court and maybe link it to the plummeting of their stock, this would become a great trial. I wish them the best
Use Adsense for Charity
I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier. Probably took awhile to draft the complaint fully.
IANAL, but AFAIK, It is almost routine to launch a countersuit. It helps settlement. And in this case it's more than justified.
s = (char*)(long)retval; /* ouch */ -- Larry Wall in doio.c from the perl source code
There ought to be a backslash. Big Corps, including RIAA, MPAA and BSA and the likes, have been defaming and libelling users with such qualificative as "pirate", "thieves", etc ..
It's time for payback. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit is, it will bring the attention of the medias to this problem. At least people will start challenging those blatant lies, whereas, up until now, journalist would just copy word by word those insults. When was the last time you read an article in a mainstream journal showing a critical opinion on the "piracy" issue?
With any luck this will make the big companies realise that they can't just force their desires onto us all without any consequences. RIAA had this coming and I hope it costs them big.
Now if Napster would file a suit like this one, things would start to look up. Up till now, the RIAA has been having all of the fun, it's time for the little guy to get in a lick or two. EVen if mp3.com loses, this should generate some much-needed publicity.
:)
I also hope that the Johansen family files suit against the MPAA. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
The RIAA has been spewing out defamation against anyone who wishes to advance recording technology. Never mind that class lectures, meetings, memorable family events can be more intelligible given a good portable stereo recorder. Anyone that threatens their dinosour business model is branded a pirate like they pillage the recording industry, rape the stars, and are the scourges of society. Granted MP3.com has their agenda too, but the RIAA has no right.
Hence they are aiming to control playing, not copying. Hence the DVD and SDMI issues; if they control the players they control the market.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Lawsuits, the next big American business strategy. Come on, don't these businesses realize the amount of R&D (leading to more profits) that they could have if they'd stop wasting their money on stupid lawsuits. I can see the point of the countersuit, but the entire lawsuit is stupid...
kwsNI
Why? The suit describes several clearly improper actions on the part of the RIAA, such as calling analysts of MP3.com's stock and more or less twisting their arms with nice not-so-subtle things like "what would happen to MP3.com's stock if we sued them?". That sort of thing is only a few slight notches above racketeering on the ethics totem pole, in my humble opinion.
I suspect that there are probably a lot of other fascinating tidbits that will come out of this trial, so I'll certainly be watching closely!
Good. Finally someone's sueing the RIAA. It's about time.
Meanwhile, why not check out this page at MP3.com? It's got some stuff you may like.
This is true.
The real reason the RIAA is pissed off here is because they can imagine sites with nothing but hunders of mp3.com codelines that would allow people to use the mp3.com system to get (more or less) any mp3s they wanted.
Essentially, another industry whose role has been swept away by technology is fighting to suppress that technology wherever it can't control it.
Fixing copyright
Four flames and seven firsts ago our fathers brought forth upon this site, a new slashdot, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all posts are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a flamebait war, testing whether that thread, or any thread so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great opensource arena of the internet. We have come to dedicate a portion of that thread, as a first posting place for those trolls who here gave their posts that this site might move forward into -1 land. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this site. The off-topic trolls, the glorious MEEPT!, Raisins and Grits, Natalie Portman post, moderated up and down, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The slashdot community will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the trolls, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who first posted here have thus far so nobly sunk down to the bottom of the thread..
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these naked and petrified posts we take increased devotion to that off-topic cause for which they gave the full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these trolls shall not have posted in vain; that this slashdot, under Roblimo, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this moderation of the posters, by the posters, and for the posters shall not perish from this site.
The RIAA went way out of line here. Hilary Rosen calling their securities analysts, and making insinuations about "what could happen to [MP3.com's] stock if they were sued"? Press releases saying that "[MP3's] are akin to walking into a record store and stealing a CD" - even when blatantly targetting (in the release) artists who had not been able to be signed by a contract, whose only real means of distribution *was* mp3.com (and were being paid for it), doing their damndest to try to convince them they were being ripped off.
Assuming, of course, that all of MP3.COM's assertions are true, the RIAA appointed itself judge and jury. There is no way they could justify calling banks and saying "are you sure you want to invest in these guys, who are stealing from us"...
Of course they're defending economic interest. There is money to be made in music. Good luck to them. The RIAA are the ones who want to maintain the monopoly. mp3.com's primary purpose is themselves, sure, but the RIAA is impuning an entire format as being 'purely for illegal purposes'.
Not quite sure about your "get it" comments. They're not open source. Because the music is distributed very cheaply, or in some cases free, I don't think comparing it to Red Hat etc is an apples and apples comparison.
MP3.com isn't the only company pushing MP3s by any means. Lycos, Yahoo, etc all also have big interests in it. (Yes and Napster too - I'm not naming any other mp3 sites, because I don't pay much attention to them).
I think clearing mp3's name will be the biggest benefit to the 'community', but I think they are more than right to go hellbound after an organisation has ripped them to shreds without the merest illusion of fair tactics.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
After all the bullying that the RIAA has been doing, it's about time that they get their a** whooped. I hope MP3.COM wins this case and I wish them well.
It's about time someone sued those bastards. Go, mp3.com, defend your good name!
.gif's day". It's a bunch of bits, a standard representation, and attempting to own it and sue people just makes the world a dimmer place.
We need some legislation about the need for open file formats along with open standards, completely separate from legislation about copyrights over the content. I don't care if you want to protect your Britney Spears song, Mr. BigRecordCompany, that doesn't give you the right to persecute the people using mp3 files.
I don't believe people can get this upset over a *file format*, jeez. It's almost as stupid as "Burn all
However, whenever people smell money, expect something stupid. Like LinuxOne, for example...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY!!!! ENOUGH OF THIS DEFENSIVE SHIT LETS KICK THEM IN THE NUTS NOW BEFORE THEY CAN RETALIATE AND KILL THE REVOLUTION!!!
just posting all of the personal information on every employee of the RIAA ? If any of them happen to get egged, defecated on, or receive bodily harm, who's really going to be that upset ? Is this moral? Is this legal ? There is afterall, a societal precedent for being mad at someone over who they work for. The educated reader will of course remember the fine film "Clerks", in which there is a discussion about the legitimacy of killing all of the contractors working on the Death Star. These employees of the RIAA --- like the contractors, know who they're working for. They're fully embracing the evil of their corrupt organization by choosing their own employment. They're just as guilty as Ms. Rosen.
Not that I'd ever suggest anything illegal. This is, afterall, a question about what the moral duty of someone would be who happened to have this information available to them. Certainly not a suggestion. Certainly not foreshadowing of a sinister plan. Nope.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
There are two honest sides to this. On the one hand are the copyright owners who have a legitimate goal of reducing illegal copying at all levels. Unless we want to lobby for the total abolition of copyright on everything, I think that copy protection mechanisms are a legitimate goal.
On the other hand we have the consumer who wants to make fair use of purchased material. In the past both law-makers and courts around the world have been broadly supportive of fair use measures. The Sony vs United Media case is the one I've seen cited in the US, and I believe that similar rulings apply over here. For those unfamiliar with it, the court took the view that copyrights are not an absolute form of property, but a form of regulation designed to increase the production of creative works.
The judge in the DeCSS case made reference to this doctrine, but said that Congress should be given very broad lattitude by the courts in making such laws, since they had both the mandate and the information to make good ones. Hence the DMCA stands.
So I think we have to educate our lawmakers here. Acknowledge copy protection technology as a legitimate means to legitimate ends, but emphasise that these schemes give content produces an unprecedented degree of control over the end use of their products. This degree of control was probably not forseen by the lawmakers who voted for DMCA (I don't comment on those who actually wrote the clauses, or the companies who lobbied for it). Hence technological copy control should only be supported by the law where it permits fair use. We can emphasise this by demonstrating copy protection schemes which permit fair use. We are good at technology: that bit should be easy.
The problem with this is that "fair use" is very hard to pin down. The law surrounding it is complicated and varies between juristictions. This means that any copy protection scheme that tries to decide if a particular copy is legitimate before allowing the copy is not going to work. There is simply no way that a piece of software can make that decision.
The only other approach would seem to be some kind of detection after the fact. For instance, if every copy included a watermark of some kind in the encryption then it would be possible to track down the person who made the copy.
This scheme might be criticised on civil liberty grounds: if the government can track down the person who made a copy of something, they can equally track down the person who said something they don't like. But such a scheme would only apply to the copier of a protected work: anything you create yourself would not be watermarked in this way.
Of course there are a few grey areas. Fair use includes litrary criticism and similar excerpting. So what about a political activist who quotes a copy protected news report in the course of saying something the Government doesn't like? The creator of the copy could be tracked down. But for the vast majority of use I think this has to be the way to go.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
The McLibel defendants may not have run up big legal bills (they represented themselves), but the strain of having McDonalds trying to crush you for several years must be enormous.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
There were noises a while ago about BMG (one of the big 4 record companies, with a record of ruthlessness; people who've had dealings with them often call them the Big Mean German) deciding whom to buy next, now that their acquisition of EMI has been thwarted. One of the options raised was a "lateral move", buying MP3.com.
Could it be that this lawsuit may be just as much calculated to reduce MP3.com's stock price, allowing them to be snapped up more easily? Given that they are the public face of unprotected "pirate" technology such as MP3s, a BMG acquisition would no doubt neutralise this, turning them into another tool of big-4 oligopoly. Beam-It could well go ahead, only with more Orwellian tracking and security, and everything would be phased over to a SDMI-based system that runs only on Windows and gives the middlemen control.
--
The old maxim holds here. Any company with publically traded shares has a legal obligation to make as much profit as they're allowed. So all of them will start bad lawsuits given the right situation. We shouldn't support "MP3.com" here; instead we should support "the right to sell music you own in any format", which means that in this case we happen to be on MP3.com's side.
People who hated IBM in the old days often supported MS just because it was the underdog. They're not the underdog any more. MP3.com may not be the underdog one day. We should support their current policy, rather than the company per se.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
--
dude. Show em whose boss. Fuck em. Trolls rule today.
Sounds to me like they'd probably have a case against the RIAA for restraint of trade under the Sherman Act as well. Collectively, the RIAA is acting as a cartel and attempting to prevent competition from outsiders, which is being done "by improper means" (various forms of making intentionally false public statements calculated to harm MP3.Com's business) and "for an improper purpose" (to prevent outsiders from competing with the RIAA members). And there is a possibility of treble damages.
If the RIAA lawsuit is frivolous and/or based on false information in its filings, there could be additional claims -- there is strong precedent for antitrust liability for abusing the legal system for anticompetitive purposes.
Any lawyers care to comment?
--
--
I think they realize they can't stop the format. The're suing because MP3 is redistributing copyright material. MP3.com cliams this is right of use, but RIAA claims that only applies to individual/person copies, etc. RIAA thinks the service from MP3.com makes it easier for pirating music. In a way their right, currently you have to burn a copy of the CD your friend brought over, or rip the MP3's. Now all you have to do it plunk it in the drive, register it on MP3.com, then hand it back. Small difference, but it is true.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
See, was that so hard?
Apparently in France, the equivalent of Comet/Currys/Dixons sell modified DVD players off the shelves, and even sell imported DVD's
Oh yeah, My cousin worked at Comet. He said that all the staff there were clueless.
If you own legal MP3s, either those you downloaded that were in the public domain, or those you ripped from CDs you already own... raise your hand.
The RIAA is basically calling all of us pirates and theives... dounds like libel, slander, and defamation of character to me.
Oughta be easy enough, even if the chances are rather low of actually winning, to find a bloodthirsty lawyer looking to get 30% of whatever billions such a huge corperate conglomerate would be penalised.
Or how about attempted restriction of my right to make backup copies in any form I choose, of any media I legitimately own?
Or what about federal prosecution under RICO? Start writing to your congressmen! The RIAA sure seems like it's engaging in racketerring. And it is UNDOUBTEDLY corrupt!!!
Turnabout's fair play, let's give those SOBs some of their own medicine!!!
Oh, and all the same applies to the MPAA as well.
And on a slightly more likely to happen note... Is the EFF involved in this one as well??? Methinks it's about time to join.
john
Imagine all the people...
TrollDK
Thank you.
The RIAA promised to pour large quantities of grits down my pants too. Let's make it class action and ring them for lots of money.
Why get trillions, when we can get billions!!!
hardDK
Thank you.
stud doogie werd!!!
Everyday is earth day, you dumb turd! Just like very day is troll day. But on Thursdays I have to take out my recycling (it's the damn law since hippies grow up and realize they haven't contributed shit to the world, so they make stupid laws) and when I take my empties and crushed glass outta my ass, I say "HEY, I'm doing something for the environement!"
And that's how I feel about Troll day! Now, c'mere and gimmie a hug!
The only other approach would seem to be some kind of detection after the fact. For instance, if every copy included a watermark of some kind in the encryption then it would be possible to track down the person who made the copy.
That's technologically infeasable, at least for music. The record producers would have to make 3 million different CDs instead of 3 million copies of the same CD. That would drive the price of CD music up out of reach of a lot of consumers. Furthermore, if the watermarking is somehow coded into the MP3 encoder, then all MP3s that I make are watermarked with the same code, whether they're legal copies, illegal copies, or my own original works. And, if any mp3 encoder is released as Open Source, all the warez puppies will just take out the watermarking code, and have untracable copies. Either CD prices go up, or MP3 encoders go closed-source. Either way, the geeks get screwed and piracy continues.
This scheme might be criticised on civil liberty grounds
There's an understatement. What music I own or listen to is my business and nobody else's. That includes the people who think they still "own" my music after I bought it.
The real problem I see with the DMCA is that (evil software co.) can put a clause in their click-through license that says you can't disclose problems with their software, and it's legally binding. How many security holes do you think (evil software co.) is going to fix if nobody can publish bug reports online? The pointy haired bosses will see bugs posted for (Open Source OS) but none for (evil, closed OS) and assume that (evil, closed OS) is a better system, because it has no bugs.
0 1 - just my two bits
Any suit can be filed. This is proved by Mattel's countersuit of me.
This one does seem somewhat reasonable. At least it's not a huge company trying to litigating a smaller one into poverty.
Fight Spammers!
RIAA is a government-sponsored cartel whose time is over. There's nothing that can be done to prevent their customers from defecting to open, public music distribution standards. There is nothing they can do to prevent the rise of new distribution systems and new providers of content outside the cartel. The next thing we will see is major, brand-name artists refusing to sign with RIAA members and choosing to go it alone, to obtain independence and a bigger piece of the action.
If the RIAA were smarter they could be part of the wave. As they are playing the game now there can be only one result: they will drive their customers away, into the arms of new dot.com businesses they don't control, and over the next few years that means big losses that could have been avoided. I wonder if the shareholders are aware yet of the questionable planning that's going on?
The MPAA should take note: the changes that are happing in the music business will also occur in the motion picture business, it will just be a few years later. Neither cartel has any hope of stopping the progress of technology, and even less hope of keeping their customers locked up forever with annoying restrictions that don't benefit them a bit. What could they be thinking? Are they just trying to prolong the cartel a few years longer to milk a few extra $$$ from poor downtrodden consumers, or do they honestly believe that their strategy has a shred of a hope of success?
One thing that will almost certainly happen is that this will force the RIAA and MPAA to tone down the rhetoric, which has been truly venomous the last few weeks. Maybe they've felt empowered by a few court wins, or by the bushels of money they sent toward Washington (and the Clinton administration in particular).
This happened to me once with a small business I owned. Things were tough, and I had some preliminary talks with a competitor about selling the business. We couldn't reach a deal, so he called my banker and told him I was trying to liquidate my inventory from under them. It was too small-time to get lawyers involved, but I'll never forget it. One of the sleaziest things I've ever seen. I still get chills when I replay the conversations in my mind.
This case isn't about copyright, it's about reigning in some politcally-connected bullies, and they're long overdue for a good spanking. Or an anti-trust investigation. But don't expect the Clinton folks to lift a finger.
HOT GRITS FOR THE TROLLS
FILL THEIR MISCHIEVIOUS BELLIES.
I LUUUUUUUUURV BRITTNEY SPEARS!!!!
For those of us behind proxies which block the entire mp3.com site, would someone please put up a mirror for these news items? Thanks!
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I don't see the relevance of MP3.com's intentions. In fact, there's really no need to guess at whether or not they "get it", they are motivated by profit, pure and simple, and that's ok -- they are, after all, a publicly-held corp.
With this in mind, the suit against the by the RIAA and their countersuit can still be relevant and worth our support/derision. Clearly, there are DeCSS-like issues here about ownership and use of pre-purchased information, and regardless of why MP3.com wants Beam It to succeed, we can support its success and preah its legality for reasons of our own.
In fact, however, I believe that if MP3.com doesn't get "it", they certainly get *something*. In fact, the very fact that they would implement Beam It technology, the fact that they would orient themselves towards providing a service rather than hoarding content, these facts show that they do understand how music marketing and information access is going to take place in the near future. That's more of an understanding than most companies have about the futures of their industries, and MP3.com is acting on it to the benefit of the consumer.
Are they doing it because they love me and want to be all warm and cuddly? I'm not an idiot, I know that's not true. But the fact is that they're acting in a way that furthers the flexibility and freedom with which I can access information. So they're ok by me.
Side note: they also own the domains mp4.com and, i think, mp5.com, just as a matter of trivia. someone mentioned mp4 up above.
god is just pretend.
I found on the MP3.com site this open letter to Hillary over at RIAA. I must say that I could not have said it better myself.
I really think it is time for us consumers to step up to the plate and let folks know that we are not going to put up with being bullied any more. We have had to endure taxes on recordable media because "we might make a copy of that N*sync album for our friends". What were the actual numbers for people who recorded stuff and gave it away? Something around 10%. So, instead of trying to get people to realize that piracy is wrong, let's just make everybody pay so that The Rolling Stones can make even more money! (And trust me folks, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. are the ones raking in the money over this. Folks like the late Muddy Waters, etc. are getting a paltry sum since the tax is distributed based on record sales.)
Remember also the other things the RIAA wanted to do - wonderful things like making used record stores pay them a tax each time a used CD/LP/tape was sold. Why? To get even more money, of course!
I agree. The thing is, I think we allready have a decent copy control system. And ammusingly, the content providers gave it to us! SCMS. Serial Copy Managment System. You can make copies from original media, but not from copies. IMO, this is fair. Of course, people have allready broken this system and most CD-R devices will ignore it. But something that did this would provide 'fair use' rights to consumers, and provide some copy control for content providers.
You can't be so young (perhaps you can, but I hope not) to have not observed that lawsuits are especially predominant in tech-related industry. Any technical or scientific advance is time-critical; there's only so long before it's superseded by another.
A lawsuit isn't primarily a means for gaining cash. It's a means to gain delay. Courts recognize that you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so they're extremely willing to grant orders stopping distribution of a new technology.
As such, the amount of extra R&D money that they'd have is totally secondary; what they want is catch-up time. So what if the suit fails or even if the defendant is awarded costs - big deal. Paying for lawsuits, offensive and defensive, is a cost of doing business.
This was true in military-related industry in the 50's, in computer hardware in the 70's when the mainframe race was really heating up, and it's true in software in the 90's and 00's.
This is also why companies try to build patent portfolios. If they are really in the wrong in a lawsuit, they can choose to cross-license patents, with or without a cash payment, to make up the value of the suit. It costs them much less than putting up dollars.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Napster would be laughed out of court.
--- http://foo.ca
A BOWL OF HOT GRITS.
A BRITTNEY SPEARS MP3.
I'M DRUNK AND PANTSLESS!
Okay, this could be a bit off topic, but what's the deal with companies being incorporated in Delaware? I noticed that ALL the movie studios in the DeCSS flap were Delaware, MP3.COM is Delaware... Does being incorporated in Delaware give them some sort of legal advantage in these matters?
Such was the case with the acceptance of quantum mechanics. Once the stubborn dinosaurs submit to evolution and die off, the rest of us can move on and advance.
Opinion is not libel.
For something to be opinion, it does not have to say, "This is opinion." Having such a disclaimer, does help. This was decided in King v. The Boston Globe. (Mas SJC).
To prove libel on a public figure, you have to show:
It looks like libel may be able to be shown in this case.
But one is not be required to litigate something be fully litigated to say that they violated the law, otherwise Clinton would have a filed suit against Paula jones and many others for saying that he had sexually harassed her, prior to a trial decision.
Fight Spammers!
I agree! This has a striking resemblance to the 'coallition' that SUN belongs to. The 'coallition' are the group of companies whining to the DOJ to sue Microsoft because MS is too successfull.
What happend? Was Sun worried that it could no longer compete, so instead of folding, they push lawsuits.
What is even more sad is that AOL (who is also apart of the whining coalltion) is gobbling up all these different companies and becoming a very huge internet/media company, but Janet Reno and her henchmen are so quiet about it. Isn't AOL engaging in uncompetitive practices by now (pending merger approval) controlling a large stake in all media?
I'm glad you brought up this great point, auntfloyd!
I appreciated that..
but then I'm a sad -old- git.
EZ
-'Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to log in..'
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
It's Brittneyspearsdot!
News for Natalie Portman!
Hot Grits that matter!
If it is the binary bits, how many bits in sequence does it take to become copyrighter? I mean, the liklihood of a particular binary signature of a few bits will be repeated worldwide. If it is the sound waves then how precide to the original does it have to be and what length?
Secondly, if I was to take my CD (purchased) and place it on my website for my personal use to listen to, is that considered copyright infringement? If I then put a password to restrict access to me, is that copyright infringement? At what level of security do I have to implement before I can properly acces my licence to listen to the music?
Enough of that, onto another idea: I think it is about time we all collectively got together and stopped purchasing anything coming out of the States. The corporate capitalism of the United States is being shoved down my throat so much that I am starting to excrete stars and stripes shaped turds (no offence to the flag). I wonder what they would say if Europe starting enforcing the use of our products (a la banana war). Oh my, America losing out on MONEY. Quick Bill, get Monica off and get on the phone to Prodi (European Union President), we are losing the greenies.
At the end of the day, the capitalist America (democratic my arse) is so far up it's own arse that it's shamefull.
I know this a little off-topic, but I'm curious. Last night I was fiddling with MyMP3.COm and registered a bunch of CDs in my collection.
In theory, it's a great idea. It's fantastic, actually.
But how does MP3.com get all this media loaded up on their end? Did they go out, purchase 100,000 CDs and then rip each one?
Do they have some massive database filled with music?
I'm just wondering if anyone knows exactly MP3.com is doing (hardware, storage) to store and serve out all these data strams.
I agree that the law needs to take copy control measures into account, with an eye towards defending fair use, rather than the intellectual 'property' of copyright holders. But I think you're mistaken to think that technological measures that really protect against illegal copying while permitting fair use are 'easy'. If you can view it, you can copy it - and this is especially true when you physically control the hardware used to view it.
Here's how I'd like to see the law handle copyright, copy protection, and fair use: If a copyright holder publishes a work in a 'shrinkwrap' form that includes technological measures that deliberately make some fair uses difficult or impossible (i.e. most copy protection schemes), the copyright is rendered null-and-void. So copyright holders can attempt to 'protect' works themselves, or they can ask the government to help them enforce copyright, but they can't do both. Make them face a tradeoff not unlike the trade secret/patent tradeoff. Copyright should not be permitted when the copyright holder attempts to limit the (effective) rights of the buyer further than the law already does, just as patents should not be granted to inventors who are unwilling to disclose how their invention works.
So, then is there a point in litigation that the information is not permitted to be publicized?
Fight Spammers!
Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. What I have in mind is that the copy mechanism would embed the watermark. In the case of a mass-produced CD the watermark would be the same for every copy, and would point to Mammoth Music Inc. But if you buy one of these CDs and make a private copy on your home CD burner then the new copy will have a different watermark pointing at you.
On the civil liberties front, this does not require that you register each piece of music in order to be able to play it. However it might require that you register your CD burner. Or the law could subpoena the source of the copy from whoever they caught holding it, and then verify the information by inspecting your equipment.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Comet staff are anti-clued. That's why you get those large explosions when geeks walk in the store.
Wow! Does this really work. I'm going to try throwing some technical journals in there!
A countersuit, can also force the original plantiff to stay with their position and not settle. As in MP3/RIAA case by MP3 showing that their product is not for stealing music, it goes a long way into proving their countersuit. If RIAA wins their suit against MP3 it also defeats the counterclaim since truth is a defense to libel.
Fight Spammers!
Its just that the media isn't allowed to have an opinion on the cases, or do anything that might be considered as prejudicing the court. I think they can print the details of the case though.
I want somebody to make a logo that says "Sued by the RIAA". I was thinking along the lines of something circular, with "SUED" along the top, "BY THE" along the bottom, and "RIAA" across the middle. Then we can encourage all the mp3 sites to display it prominently as a badge of honor.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
When I said free, I meant available to any idiot with the mental capability to use a keyboard and mouse, not free as in legally and/or morally free. I really, really hate English. But I digress.
I know full well that those in power will trample over those not in power. Yes, it's gonna be nasty, and yes, it shouldn't happen. The problem is, the RIAA and related groups are no longer in power when it comes to the mass distribution of music. They *are*, however, in power when it comes to the mass production of music, and more importantly, the courts. Therein lies the problem. The RIAA feels cornered, trapped, and scared, and is lashing out at convenient targets.
The situation with DVD is a little bit different. DVD movies are just a *tad* too big to download, and DVD movies can't be copied on your average PC, so the movie distributors still have more control over their products. Yes, I know that DVD-RAM burners exist, but they're a different animal altogether. The MPAA is scared that it might end up in the same situation as the RIAA is now, so they're launching some preemptive strikes.
Now that I think about, I think you're arguing the same point as I am...
I have legit, non-bootleged, original and fully paid for region 2 DVDs I imported from Japan. I had better have every freaking right to (1) mod my player, (2) get the parts needed to mod my player, (3) have it modded for me, or (4) buy it pre-modded by the reseller. What does anyof this have to do with copying or piracy or even distribution time frames? Most of the stuff I import will never even see a domestic release (and things get edited/changed for domestic release anyway so it's not even the same product anymore.) Copyright holders got their fair cut from the sale of their DVD to me? WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM? Am I being anal or criminal in any way?
Okay, I can remember the beginings of MP3.COM. MP3.COM wasn't much of a eBusiness site at first. Then it was bought by some company I think, and that's how it got a lot of attention. As far as I remember, RIAA had always been against the site for all the reasons. I mean, come on, they're named MP3.COM. As far as I can remember RIAA always had a problem with that site, so, they go way way back. Look at their news section.
Although it hurts libraries and other archivists when they need to preserve content but the original no longer exists or is unavailable.
(besides, as long as i bought it and haven't sold or given the music away, who cares what i copy from what? sounds boneheaded to me)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I still can't believe there's so much hype and hooplah surrounding the mp3 audio format. I'm surprised that the RIAA isn't more worried about lossless compression formats. You'd think that formats with no generational sound quality loss, or any loss of information for that matter, would really get some panties in a bunch.
Mark this offtopic if you want, but here's some info I've never seen on Slashdot about a lossless compression format called Shorten.
SoftSound, the developer of the format, sells a Windows encoder/decoder. There are also FREE versions available for Windows, Linux, and Mac. The HOWTO for the format is located here. There's also a great guide located here. Shorten for Mac and Linux is over here.
Anyone interested in the lossless compression of audio should definately give this a look-see.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, MP4 does not compress an audio track like MP3 does. It is not an improved version of MP3. From what I've read on the MP4 Developer Tools Site, MP4 works somewhat like an augmented version of MIDI files (in fact there seems to be legacy support for MIDI).
So you wouldn't be able to convert your CD tracks to MP4.
Quotes:
'MP4-SA is different from standards like the MIDI File Format, because it includes not only the notes to play, but the method for turning notes into sound.'
'If the instrument models use algorithmic synthesis instead of wavetables, an MP4-SA file can describe realistic musical performances without using any audio data -- just score data, mixdown cues, and DSP algorithms. In this case, the MP4-SA file is about the same size as a MIDI File, but is a lossless encoding of the audio heard at mixdown. Just like a WAV file -- but 50 to 1000 times smaller!'
--Luc
Great games
Actually, the correct name for the MP3 format is MPEG Audio-Layer 3, which is part of the original MPEG (1) standard. This actually has algorithms for both audio and video compression, but the video codec didn't catch on nearly as much as the audio did... that's why most ppl use MPEG2 for video/tv compression.
I've said all along that MP3 is interim technology ... it's opening up new markets, but it isn't the end-all, and lossy compression is NOT the future of audiophile music.
.shn files can hold up to about 110 minutes of music on a data CDR! Doing so gives you the more reliable error correction of CDR data vs CD audio, which makes ripping errors a thing of the past.
While the MPAA and MP3.com battle it out to determine the future of music files degraded by lossy compression, those on the cutting edge have moved on.
Check out: www.softsound.com for instance. They have a LOSSLESS compression scheme called "shorten" that can reduce a sound file 2:1.
It isn't 10:1 like MP3, but considering that most people have written off audio data as uncompressable, a 2:1 ratio isn't too shabby.
Audiophiles have quietly switched over to this format for internet music trading. As the internet bandwidth grows, the file size advantage of MP3 will become less important, and lossless compression such as shorten will replace lossy compression schemes, such as MP3, and the current crop of SDMI compression schemes that the recording industry is "betting the farm" on.
Plus, a CDR loaded with
If the recording industry was SMART, they would position MP3 as a "preview", or streaming format, like FM radio and advertise it as a lower quality, more convenient format at a lower price, or even give it away for free. Then they would be in a position to sell their uncompressed tracks at full price as a "premier" product, and interest in MP3s would diminish.
However, the recording industry isn't smart.
Instead, they are positioning their own flavors of inferior lossy compression as their "premier" product. In a year or so, people will realize that there are non-SDMI products that offer SUPERIOR sound quality to the industry "premier" product, and the recording industry will have once again painted themselves into a corner.
- John
If the behavior would currently be illegal, wait a few months until BMG has time to rent a few congresscritters.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I'm glad to see mp3.com suing the RIAA. It's not like the RIAA's suit doesn't reek of anti competitive practices to any red blooded American which leads me to say that theoretically one could refer to any organization that behaves like the RIAA as un-American (with all that implies).
The music industry only came to exist in it's present form in the 50's and 60's , and has long sat atop the pinnacle of decision of what music get's publicized and what doesn't. How many of us own material released by artists on small independant labels? I would venture to say all of us. Imagine if the powers of this monopoly could prevent the distribution of anything in vinyl or CD format that wasn't authorized by them or their constituents?
When vinyl was phased out in favor of CD's, the average price of an album was hiked by over 100%.
This could only have happened because of the monopolistic power of the RIAA and the recording industry in general. Presently, CD's cost less to manufacture than vinyl, yet still cost more. The RIAA's cheif contention is that mp3.com's service of digitizing media content for sale on partner sites and then offering you immediate download of your new purchase interferes with their ability to leverage that market to their own advantage and ultimately come to dominate and control that market, using non standard encoding formats (ie. Windows Media)
that are unsupported by anything but trial proven
software monopoly Microsofts products. I think this is a pretty transparent case here folks.
It's a run for the money, a lawsuit filed by the
RIAA against mp3.com simply because mp3.com beat them (the collective record industry conglomerate formed by the RIAA's members) to the punch by providing immediate download of purchase contents.
Yes, mp3's enable pirating. A gun enables shooting someone. We still hold the gun owner responsible for the actions taken with the gun
because it's sensible. Those who use mp3's to pirate material are pirates. One can pirate material in a number of ways, including Microsofts
windows media format. Obviously, mp3.com demonstrates legitimate use for the format.
It isn't about just finding mp3.com innocent of
criminal behavior, but finding the RIAA guilty of anti competitive and un american practices by filing harrasing lawsuits and engaging in defamatory statements and imposing adequate punishment upon them. We need to send a strong message to corporate america that
monopolies will not be tolerated, otherwise we can toss out the phrase 'free trade and competition' and simply be 'capitalists' in the derogatory sense of the word. I love america.
If you love america you will burn the RIAA
at the stake.
void this_is_a_stack_issue(){this_is_a_stack_issue();}
Truce.
The real problem I see with the DMCA is that (evil software co.) can put a clause in their click-through license that says you can't disclose problems with their software, and it's legally binding.
That's a small aspect of the problem with DMCA. I'm more worried about the retroactive license changes that I'm forced to accept. And the fact that those who don't use it (Free Software/Open Source License of Choice) are more liable for their charitable contribution to society bugs than the evil software corp that I paid to provide a product.
DCMA strikes me as an attempt to slowing or stop the opensource movement while increasing Evil Software Corp.'s power/control/whatever.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
Fight Spammers!
Hopefully this countersuit by mp3.com will bring out all the rhetoric in the RIAA's holy war to protect copyrights.
Mp3.com should seriously look into involving some of the artists in this debate. From all the news I have heard about digital music alternatives, and mp3s in particular, some artists endorse the format. I have never heard of an artist engaged in the campaign to stop the digital distribution of music. That reign so far belongs only to the RIAA and the record labels.
So, if the RIAA's argument behind this rhetoric is to protect the copyrights of the artists, why haven't the artists themselves put up an effort to protect their rights in their own name? Remember folks that the RIAA is an acronym for the Recording Industry Association of America. They don't directly represent the interests of the artist. They represent the interests of the recording industry, pure and simple.
An excellent analogy to the RIAA situation would be that of the tobacco companies. The RIAA and the tobacco companies benefit from producing a product that consumers enjoy. But the industry eventually damages or even kills off that which is most important. In the case of the tobacco companies, it is the smoker's health. In the case of the RIAA, the artists are bullied around to the whim of the record labels.
So, this battle will be decided on which party shows a better interest in both the consumer and the artist. And for the Recording Industry Association of America, only bribes and sympathy will win you that honor.
Yeah... it would be too bad if newsrags picked up a story about Natalie Portman's fondness for hot grits.. :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Newbie yourself. If you weren't a newbie, you wouldn't respond to trolls.
What really bugs me about RIAA is that they complain and whine about lost royalties, yet one must ask the question: how many times do I have to pay royalties for the same music? I have a large record (i.e. vinyl) collection and have duplicates of many on CD. I paid the royalties once, why do I need to pay them again (and again, and again....)? This does not seem fair at all. Are they going to offer refunds to people who pay royalties more than once?
Watermarks! Copy protection! DMCA!
"Aha! This story, which leaked from SlashFact, mentions that Gates was wearing reddish-orange shoes, and that Balmer was standing 1.664 meters away at the time of the blast, listening to an SDMI-encoded Michael Jackson song encoded at the strange bitrate of 126935 bits per second. Looking these pieces of trivia (keys) up in the table, we see that CodeShark must have leaked the story! Expect a letter from our lawyers, Codeshark."
"We also think that Sloppy leaked this story too, but he removed the superfluous/non-essential information about Gates' shoe color and Balmer's bitstream rate. Since that information is actually part of the story's watermark, removing it is in violation of the DMCA. Expect a letter from our lawyers, Sloppy!"
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A new smart encryption scheme means we need people to spend time thinking about how to circumvent the mischievious consumer. This means the copy protection scheme needs to be able to adapt and change over time as 'the people' get smarter and learn how to crack it. A lot of time and money would need to go into this project, and what does it protect? It keeps those who don't pay as well as those who can't afford to pay for the product from enjoying it. I personally feel that art, wheather it is music, poetic perl, paintings, sculptures or even video, was meant to convey an emotion or an idea, but I can't understand artists today. They seem to be more concerned with money than their artwork. That is exactly what creates 'the media' and commercialism we see on our TV everyday. Don't get me wrong, commercialism pays for a LOT, and isn't necessarily bad. Entire companies on the net get their funding solely from commercialism, which allows them to bring websites and information to the people. But does real art really have a place in commercialism?
What if artists started creating media that could be freely distributed under something similar to the GPL, where their art could be admired and remaster / mixxed, or whatever the consumer wants to do with it as long as credit goes back to the original artist it could put an end to large corporations trying to spread their 'media' which usually isn't art. Then artists could experience some of the freedom and pleasure of the open-source movement. They could still make money selling their work on CDs, DVDs, mp3s, etc. But as long as money doesn't matter to them as much as their artwork, they could find comfort in knowing that the general public can enjoy what they have created without the fear of large corporations suing them for copying or otherwise using the art.
I just wish someday us Americans will wake up and reallize it isn't all about money.
P.S. Opensource economic models such as Redhat have made hundreds of millions in revenue and stock, and most of that was distributed between the artists who continue to build on their masterpiece, instead of some M$ corp's pocket book, who continue to rethink new propietary standards and find new ways to break their code.
you mean grit not git, right?
At this time, I would like to invite the executives from the RIAA to tongue-bathe my anus while I listen to MP3s from MP3.com. Thank you.
It's not the same case at all.
DeCSS deals wiht the DMCA.
The mp3.com/beam-it case deals with outright copyright infringement.
If you're only going for a 2:1 compression ratio for your music, there is little reason to bother with some random proprietary codec. Both gzip and Bzip2 will do better on random binaries.
Now, the other side (or at least in my case) demand documents, some of which they have no right too, going back years and years. Forcing you to travel to depositions, digging through your entire life, making totally false acusations as a defense.
Court cases can be quite stressful. There had been many nights, due to Mattel's ridiculous countersuit, that I had problems sleeping. In preparing for the summary judgment motion, I and my lawyer pulled some all nighters. Prior to flying up for hearings and/or depositions, I would have to forgo sleep in preparation for the trip.
Fight Spammers!
There are many enociders out there (Xing and BladeENC spring to mind) that are not liscenced from Fraunhofer. They just don't use the Fraunhofer methods for encoding, that's all. They are perfectly legal and Fraunhofer hasn't even tried to stop them.
The blurb mentions that this will keep the idea locked into court for a while. This is actually a good thing. The longer it takes to come to a decision, the longer we have to prove that MP3's are a standard way to move things around. If we can prove that the standard is there and works then it is harder for them to make people stop.
----- When it is dark enough, men see stars.
Since the RIAA and the MPAA are simply two facets of the same atrocity, we need a term which encompasses both.
Media Whoremongers
Sony Bono is an example of a Media Whore, whose congressional seat was probably purchased by recording industry.
Michael Jackson, in his lame appearance at the Reagan whitehouse lobying for legislation which later passed and took DAT technology out of the hands of the casual consumer as well as added an "unauthorized copying tax" to blank media, is another. (I mention the Reagan whitehouse to underscore that not only the Clinton administration is at fault, but both parties, in both the congress and the white house, have behaved equally reprehensibly in the last several years.)
MGI is an example of a whoremonger, as are Sony, Time-Warner, and so on.
A "Sued by Media Whoremongers" banner would be applicable to MP3 sites, Linux DVD sites, and probably allot of other sites we aren't even aware of, who have quietly shut down for fear of economic ruin.
As a corallary, "Silenced by Media Whoremongers" would be a nice image to display when one is forced to remove their site, presumably with a link to other sites with detailed information on the underlying issues (e.g. LiVid).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well quite frankly, making true, open source digital music would be a rather difficult task. To best illustrate this to you, I'll tell you the process I typically go through when mixing and mastering a song for Empty Head (a small tech/industrial band I work with):
First the lead singer/tracker loads up the tracked music on my computer in his tracker and breaks it down by part. The orignal file is usually around 9MB and each broken down track (of which there are about 8-10) are about 3-5MB. Then, I convert each of those to a .wav file using the tracker software. Each wav tends to come out around 50-100MB depending on song length. Those are then loaded into my multi track software, and I do some preliminary editing. Then, we get together with the guitarists and lay down the guitar and vocal tracks. Usually by the time we are done we are up to somewhere in the realm of 20-30 tracks ranging from 5MB to 50MB each. An average project is about 1-2GB of stored files and takes around 3GB of temp space for the editing. Then we do all the effects, editing and all that. Then, I have my software downmix all those tracks to a single stereo wav which can be burned to CD or encoded to MP3.
Now, how would you suggest I open source that? I suppose I could give you all the tracks in their pre-mixdown state.... If you really want to download a gig or two (and you can quadruple that soon as I'm moving to 24-bit, 96khz recording). Or maybe I should just give you the tracker data and the raw vocal and guitar tracks. Even then, you are still talking in the 100-300MB range per song. Also, with that method, you have no wasy to get the song back to where I had it except for a listening test, since all the edits I make are applied straight to the wav files and not saved. Also, you still aren't getting a truly open sourced song. The vocals and the guitar tracks are still closed. You can change how they sound, but not what has actually been played. To do that, I'd have to send you the actual musicans, and I think they'd take exception to being shipped FedEx :)
This gets even worse when you start dealing with bigger studios that actually have money. I may only be able to do recording to my computer but many studios do their audio to other things like ADAT or Reel to Reel. It wouldn't do you much good if Pink floyd open sourced "The Wall" as I really doubt you've got a 2" 24 track sitting around.
Also, this gets further complicated by misoc that is recorded live and/or to 2-track. I can't open source you the band concert last week that I recorded, cause the whole thing was recorded 2-trak straight to my MiniDisc. I can't recostruct the orignal tracks from that, no matter how hard I try.
At any rate, my point behind this huge rant is that you really can't have open source music in the same way we have open source software. Digital music is easy to make free as in beer but is hard to make free as in speech. The closest you get is with something like classical music where you can go out and gett the orignal scoring. Of course, you still have to find yourself an orchestra, and those don't tend to be free :)
If you own legal MP3s, either those you downloaded that were in the public domain, or those you ripped from CDs you already own... raise your hand.
Ok, now everone who raised their hand, put it down if you've downloaded any copyrighted MP3s for which you don't already own a legal copy or have some other legal right to.
There, that should reduce the class action to a much more reasonable size.
I don't agree with what the RIAA is doing, but I don't think the answer is to be hypocritical about it either. I've downloaded many MP3s for which I didn't own a legal copy. Of course I often bought the CD soon after that if I liked the songs. They don't stay on my HD very long if I don't like them. If I do like them, then I don't have much problem buying the CD (although I still think the prices are insane). Even bought a few from MP3.com from bands that I'd never heard of before visiting the site and listening to some of their MP3s.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I personally support mp3.com. I have been using their Beam-It service for awhile and have found it extremely useful. I have about 80 CDs, all of which I enjoy listening too, and it is great to be able to stream them to any computer ( I have two plus one at work). I feel mp3.com has provided a great service to people like me and should be supported. I think the RIAA is way off base with thier lawsuit. It seems to me mp3.com has taken measures to ensure thier service is used the way it is intended; to let music owners have greater access to their collections ( eg - links expire after only one hour, you need the physical CD in your computer to Beam-It). Yes it is concievable that people could take advantage of this service by sharing accounts etc., but from what I've read they disconnect you if there are multiple streams active in your account. I don't see the RIAA's members losing any more money from mp3.com's site than they already lose to prirating. I still buy the CDs, now I just listen to them online. Sure people can borrow Cds and Beam them, but you could also record them to a tape, and I don't see the RIAA suing tape manufacturers.
One place patent law has to be modified is making it totally clear that companies have to act in a reasonable time frame from when they first learn of possible violations. Unisys waited like 6 years before they started enforcing LZW. Can anyone guess why? Would GIF have caught on as a standard if a license had been required at the beginning? No way. Would anyone support GIF today if not for the popularity it gained while Unisys conveniently failed to notice the growing popularity of it's patented technology.
--Kevin
Why is the proxy blocking mp3.com? Is the RIAA leaning on the university?
That was before, this is now. mp3.com is being sued over their new my mp3 service which allows you to use a program to prove that you have an album and then be able to listen to that album from anywhere with an internet connection by logging in to mp3.com's online database. The lawsuit against mp3.com is not over the way mp3.com distributes legal mp3's that users upload.
The my mp3 service really is questionable though because for one, it's kind of like mp3.com is distributing THEIR copy of albums, and there are ways that users can download albums that they don't own.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the RIAA, but there are always more sides to every story than one.
If what MP3.COM is saying is true, can't the RIAA be _criminally_ prosecuted under the RICO statutes? Any legal droids out the familiar enough with anti-racketeering law to offer an unofficial opinion?
And you criticized Jon Katz for being a gas bag?? Why that post was Katz-like in magnitude! o.o
Here is a little article that digs into the plight of the musician at the hads of the RIAA. It's at the site of a non-profit called Musicians United, which also has a pro open formats petition going. Some of you might enjoy this.
Sharecro pping the Corporate Farm
Open Music Format Petition
RS
Using crowbars to gain access to other's property isn't.
The RIAA, having failed in it's attempts to restrict people's right to make audiotape copies of material they legally bought and purchased (i.e., to play in their car, if their car is equipped only with a cassette tape player, and they bought vinyl or CD) is now attempting to make the digital equivalent of tape players illegal. The final result of this is inevitable. If I have a right to make an audiotape copy of my music, for later playback on a different audio device, then I surely have the right to make a digital copy of my music and store it on a web server for later playback by myself on different devices, provided I take reasonable and prudent actions to prevent others from gleaning copies of it. Would the RIAA also insist that I can't leave audiotape copies of my music in my car, because someone might steal them and redistribute them?
The real problem I see with the DMCA is that (evil software co.) can put a clause in their click-through license that says you can't disclose problems with their software, and it's legally binding. How many security holes do you think (evil software co.) is going to fix if nobody can publish bug reports online? The pointy haired bosses will see bugs posted for (Open Source OS) but none for (evil, closed OS) and assume that (evil, closed OS) is a better system, because it has no bugs.
Don't be silly, that wouldn't have any effect on the nuber of bug reports. Those few people who even read the licence would just ignore such stupid restrictions.
Just in case this isn't totally obvious - suing your customers for complaining about problems with your products is not a winning strategy.
It's been said before, but it just strikes me how this whole debate revolves around industry and the legal field.
Who consumes the damn music?
The record industry says "I'm the music" yet it's only a container. It is not the substance.
The legal advisors say "We are the truth" yet they represent different interests, namely industry factions that fight each other.
The truth is that music has passed from a cultural statement to an economic accessory. People who used to BE the music by listening, singing and playing are now almost dispensable.
It's amazing this industry is still alive, considering the way it treats it's customers and artisans. Maybe MP3 is a well needed shot in the arm afterall.
Obi Wan Celeri (at work)
Beam-It is a concept that lets you listen to the CDs that YOU OWN at other places without having to lug the whole album of CDs with you. Say I want to play a track from my new CD at my friend's house. Instead of having to drive home and get it, I can log on to their server, log in to my Beam-It window (where I had uploaded proof that I owned the disc beforehand) and immediately play it. Where's the piracy?
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
What is different, is that MPAA is not being countersued (yet) for libel. Maybe it's because RIAA picked on a company (with some money) as opposed to a kid in another country.
Okay now i'm sorry if this point has already been brought up. I read a lot of posts in this thread, but didn't see it addressed. You see, whether there are legitimate reasons for having/using mp3s or not, the fact is that almost all (say 80+%) of mp3 traffic is stricktly a violation of copyright law. If you don't believe me, check out Napster.com and log on. You'll find times when a full terrabyte of music is available, and guess what, this is stolen music. There is very little difference (read: none) between taking a copyrighted song in mp3 format and simply stealing it from a store.
/. posts) trying to defend mp3 on some kind of self-rightous level? Most mp3 traffic is illegal. That simple. Of course the RIAA files a lawsuit against mp3.com, and so they should. The way the .mp3 file format is being used is a genuince violation of copyright laws. Now, whether you give a damn about said copyright laws is entirely another matter (like i said, i fully endorse ripping off mainstream artists... there's no way in hell anybody whose merely an entertainer deserves as much $$$ as they get).
Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way saying there's anything wrong with stealing artists music. In fact, I fully endorse stealing mainstream music, but why the hell is everybody (again this might just be me mis-interpreting
Guys, bag on the RIAA all you want, but their lawsuit isn't some kind of sinister-conspiracy. It's what anybody would do in their position. No need to be self-rightous. Anyway, it makes no difference. The music industry as we know it is undergoing a severe rape. And I say it's about damn time.
~~Lofwyr "iLLusive"
The details of how an SDMI player could ever stop playing MP3s is very vague -- how would they ever be able to communicate with and get their "stop working" message to a CD-ROM player? For anything that uses a open interface for storage (ISO CD-ROMs, or Flash RAM that is writable using non-MS/Apple OSes) it's impossible.
The answer could be in watermarking. If they can get inaudible or low-key watermarks in audio which can be detected in the MP3 stream and are difficult to remove, they can surely embed a code in the watermark.
More probably, the magic bullet will be fired when there is a new "signed" audio standard; perhaps an additional copyright/license chunk. Encoders will write the chunk, embedding user info, date/time and the like. After a specified date, the RIAA could require all encoders (and you can bet that anything capable of writing such a chunk won't be open-source) to put in the kill code.
Or they could simply require players to fuse a "no unprotected MP3" switch after a specified date, or after a file with an encoding time after a specified date is loaded. It doesn't have to be transmitted from RIAA Headquarters in realtime.
It'll never happen. I won't buy a device or program that watermarks the files I produce, or if I do, I'll crack it to remove that 'feature'. My computer serves me, only. I refuse to participate in any copy protection schemes.
Ditto for the US Gov's idea of making printers write the serial number on everything they print. I'll buy imported models that don't do that, or disable it, one way or another.
No, but there are a lot fewer magazines and emags than customers in general. It is feasible to sue magazines who publish these articles.
The DMCA is the result of illegal bribes, plain and simple. Ditto with similar laws, like the retroactive copyright length extension. And I say this not just as a user, but as an author.
I'll never shop at Amazon again, nor EToys, nor, now, any corporation who exercises their illegally gained rights from the DMCA.
(You can't just boycott a company while they have an active lawsuit, and stop when they're done, because like EToys recent exercise in judge bribing, they'll simply stop when they achieved what they needed, like kicking etoy off the net during the christmas season. If you boycott them, *never* go back, there are always alternatives.)
Your post makes perfect sense. Copyrights are granted because they're good for society and for the owner of the IP. They protect against mass copying and so make the owner more likely to release their IP for everyone's use.
If that material isn't usable by people, then it shouldn't be granted copyright.