Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MP3.com Countersues RIAA

Posted by Hemos on from the striking-back dept.

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.

19 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. by jd · · Score: 3
    It almost doesn't matter, at this point, who wins. RIAA and MP3 are going to drive themselves almost out of the market.

    (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)
    1. Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. by acb · · Score: 3

      Do you know how many
      hardware mp3 players there are in production today? Do you know how many WILL be
      in production? At comdex in Fall 1999, there were TONS of mp3 player manufacturers
      peddling their wares.

      And most of these are committed to SDMI compliance. Which means that the RIAA fires a magic bullet and all your MP3s are gone. (They haven't finalised that, but they intend to.)

      Once SDMI is on the market, you can bet they will aggressively sue anybody who peddles anything that does not comply. A company will no more be able to make a non-compliant audio player (like the old Rios) than they will be able to make and distribute a non-zoned DVD player.

    2. Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. by kaphka · · Score: 3

      Okay, everyone take a deep breath.

      The RIAA does not own MP3. MP3.com does not own MP3. "No one" does not own MP3.

      "Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V." owns MP3. The patent is here.

      Okay, that's an oversimplification. The patent only covers an encoding algorithm, not the format itself, and Fraunhofer may have some obligations to license it under certain terms. But for practical purposes, any MP3 encoder that is not distributed with Fraunhofer's blessing is probably illegal.

      Here's some background:
      http://www.mp3.com/news/095.html
      http://slashdot.org/articles/98 /10/19/1543219.shtml

      Having said all that, I still don't understand what you mean when you say that the RIAA and MP3 are both going to drive themselves out of the market. What market? Are we going to go back to clockwork music boxes instead?

      --

      MSK

    3. Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. by Wah · · Score: 3

      don't count out consumer education. I've already told at least five people that no matter what kind of MP3 player they buy, avoid SDMI ones. We killed DIVX, and the market for most of these players will be people who are already using MP3's and will mostly be aware of what SDMI means. SDMI missed a *huge* deadline by not being on store shelves by Christmas, add to being late to market the fact that they all won't be compliant with each other and you have a dog dead on arrival.

      Hopefully consumers will never feel they have to pay more to subsidize initiatives that lower the value of their purchases.

      --
      +&x
    4. Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. by kaphka · · Score: 3
      You're wrong. I'm not sure how to prove it, but maybe this excerpt from the Fraunhofer letter will do it:
      From your publications and your web-site we learn that you distribute and/or sell decoders and/or encoders that use the MPEG Layer-3 standard.

      Our files do not show that you have a valid license agreement with us. This means that the products infringe the patent rights of Fraunhofer and THOMSON.
      Period. They didn't ask what algorithm they were using, so Fraunhofer's lawyers are obviously under the impression that their patent covers any method of MP3 encoding. It's a complicated situation, and I'm sure you could debate the scope of the patent, but Fraunhofer's claim must be pretty credible, because a whole lot of MP3 encoders dissappeared when they sent these letters out.

      This is all covered in the MP3.com article that I linked to: http://www.mp3.com/news/095.html
      --

      MSK

  2. More Info by noeld · · Score: 4
    For more information on this check out mp3.com's page or riaa's press release page.

    Take a look at the MPEG-4 Structured Audio: Developer Tools for info on MP-4.

    RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix

    --

    kayaking

  3. It's time to pay for your sins, Big Corp! by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3

    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?

  4. This is a good case to watch. by dougman · · Score: 5

    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!

    1. Re:This is a good case to watch. by StoryMan · · Score: 3

      Dude, inherent bias doesn't render something inaccurate.

      Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.

      My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.

      I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.

      Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:

      First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.

      And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.

      People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).

      This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.

      It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.

      I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).

      See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!

  5. Fighting by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 5
    Fighting the good fight, and benefitting themselves.

    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.

  6. We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalents. by Paul+Johnson · · Score: 4
    I say "and equivalents" because I live in the UK. But UK and EU law are likely to incorporate similar anti-copy-protection-evasion measures, if they don't already.

    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.
  7. MP3's stock and the wildcard by acb · · Score: 3

    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.

  8. RIAA Senior Exec contradicts RIAA's claims! by Sanity · · Score: 3
    Companies like UBL, IUMA, Farm Club and MP3.com prove that there are many creative ways to promote new artists online without infringing on the rights of artists and copyright owners. And who said this? Cary Sherman, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, RIAA! See On this press release if you don't believe me!

    --

  9. Support policies, not people by divec · · Score: 3

    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"'

  10. RIAA Senior Exec contradicts RIAA's claims! by Sanity · · Score: 4
    "Companies like UBL, IUMA, Farm Club and MP3.com prove that there are many creative ways to promote new artists online without infringing on the rights of artists and copyright owners"
    And who said this? Cary Sherman, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, RIAA! See this press release if you don't believe me!

    --

  11. Why not Restraint of Trade? by niemidc · · Score: 4

    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?

  12. Lawsuits, the OLD American business strategy by twit · · Score: 3

    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
  13. Re:SUN? by Katydid · · Score: 3
    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.

    I'm not quite sure why you're bringing this up here, but I'll respond to it anyways. The RIAA, which the poster to whom you're replying claimed (probably correctly) is suing because it can no longer compete, is in no way analogous to SUN or the "coalltion" [sic] involved in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Rather, there are some striking parallels between the RIAA and MS - both hold a monopoly in their fields, and both are pursuing/have pursued questionable (read: possibly illegal) tactics to keep said monopoly. Just as the RIAA may feel it can no longer compete against MP3s, MS felt that it might be in deep trouble if forced to compete with Netscape/Java/platform independent programs. Read the FoF, please.

    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?

    According to past interpretations of the applicable laws (Sherman Act and others), simply having a large market share does not a monopoly make, and even having a monopoly does not equate to breaking the law. It's what you do with it that matters, like leveraging that monopoly to gain market share in other areas. "Anticompetitive practices" means just that: doing things, not merely being.

    (Posted at Score: 2 to be at the same level as the parent. Sorry for off-topicness.)

  14. Re:Royalties by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3
    Not to mention, why the assumption that there are no music creators other than those signed to industry labels? By this I mean, why can't you get blank tapes, blank CD-Roms etc. for recording YOUR OWN music and not pay a tax to the industry? That is effectively paying royalties to the RIAA for nothing and receiving nothing but emptier pockets and the knowledge that you've given your enemy even more money to crush you with.

    Looking around I see: five blank CD-Rom media. Six blank audio cassettes. 12 S-VHS tapes destined for use in a spiffy ADAT. Can anybody give me a figure on exactly how much money I was forced to give to the RIAA for these media alone, none of which is to be used to copy their artists? Also, I am curious- artists use higher quality tapes for master recordings, and in fact the S-VHS is 'required' by my ADAT. Tell me, when I buy more high-quality media, am I taxed _more_ compared to crud tapes, or the same?