Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MP3.com Pays Damages to Sony

Posted by Hemos on from the the-music-juggernaut-keeps-rolling dept.

Spudley writes "According to this story on the BBC MP3.com have agreed an out-of-court settlement to pay Sony music $20 million in damages for their past copyright infrigements. The deal also covers the future - MP3.com will from now on pay royalties to Sony. However, the judge has ruled that the trial must still take place, in order to make a ruling on other copyright cases against them."

41 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. "justice is only for those with deep pockets." by Adler · · Score: 2
    if this is what you consider "justice"

    i like to call it being a bully

    Adler

    --

    Everybody denies I am a genius--but nobody ever called me one!

  2. 150+ Million for an Idea they nicked from myplay.. by szyzyg · · Score: 2
    Not only did they launch their service 3 months after myplay.com, but it's been offline for a while... The only advantage they have is their name and all the PR - but that might be enough to get them more customers..... Maybe myplay isn't on slashdot all the time because they're not doing anything to get sued over.

    Now... If only myplay will support vorbis alongside mp3 and windows media....

    (Oh - and go and listen to my Downtemp/L eftfield Selection on myplay....)

  3. Looking ahead... by rjk · · Score: 4

    Looking beyond the specific case to the general question...

    It's surely news to nobody that traditional approaches to copyright don't mix well with the net. What possible solutions to this are there?

    We can abandon the notion of copyright. That raises the question of how creators are to be compensated. Personally I give some of the software and fiction I've created away - but not everyone is happy with this, and I wouldn't be happy if some of my favourite authors (say) had to gave up writing because they couldn't make a living from it.

    The Street Performer Protocol will doubtless be familiar. That's one approach that might be useful. Another approaches might be for the state to support artists - this already happens to an extent anyway in some countries, but has the difficulty that you end up with a bias towards whatever the state (or its agents) prefer. (But would that be worse than a bias towards what the record companies prefer?) You have to collect the money, too, and new taxes are rarely popular.

    We could do it through voluntary donations - charity, essentially - but that could be a bit hit-and-miss.

    If we want to keep the notion of copyright, we could enforce it very strictly. But that would be expensive and intrusive even to do badly, and is surely impossible to do well.

    We could all fit hardware-supported digital rights management subsystems to our computers, but that would again be intrusive and may be hard or impossible to do well; it'd only take one "chipped" PCs for the copyrighted cats to get out of the bag.

    One can imagine a system where the content provider distributes (via the net, radio, etc) encrypted content to a tamper-proof player (hifi, TV, walkman, toaster, etc) in your home that they've sold, rented or just given you, and charges micropayments for each performance. The infrastructure costs would be hideous, though, as would be the impact on individual choice of playback equipment, and again once unencrypted versions of the content becomes available the whole systems falls apart.

    We could just ignore the problem, and trust that unauthorized copying isn't such a huge problem after all. This might even be true; I still buy music CDs despite knowing that digital copies are often (illegally) available for nothing, for example.

    Any other suggestions?

    1. Re:Looking ahead... by interiot · · Score: 2

      The goal is not to let the author gain as much money as possible. The goal is to provide an incentive to create and publish. Why should the question of "how much incentive?" be determined by how much commercial life a published work has?

    2. Re:Looking ahead... by Masem · · Score: 2
      I still read works by Ray Bradbury, listen to works of Glenn Miller, and enjoy the early Looney Toons, all which have enjoyed periods of revival in the past decade due to one thing or another, and yet are over 30 years old, so they don't make your cut. Should we extend the line to protect these works as well? Corporations want to, but at some point, based on my interpretions and readings of the thoughts of the founding fathers in copyright issues, a work has enjoyed sufficient time to sufficiently saturate the nation and that it should fall into the public domain regardless of any future spurts of popularity. That line that is drawn needs to be a function of the technological means to distribute material and the area it was to be distributed across. In the 1800s, most information had to be printed by presses, and distributed by ground transportation, so a copyright expiry time of 30 years makes sense. Today, information can be gotten in seconds, and anything much more than 5 years seems crazy. If you also consider that on a per population basis, there is more IP around compared to 1800, and the fact that much of it is stagnent due to corporate profits will eventually lead to stagnation in all aspects of life.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    3. Re:Looking ahead... by Masem · · Score: 2
      My idea on copyright fixing is two parts:

      1) Reduce the terms on copyrights to 10 years from public release. There is no reason why it should take more than this time for copyright holders today to rake in the wealth they can get from this given the ease of obtaining legal copies of the work either from brick and morter or from the internet. Of course, this would be retroactive like all other copyright extention bills of late.

      2) Force all copyrights to be held by up to 4 individuals each with at least 25% contribution to the copyrighted work. Prevent corporations from holding any copyrights. This would force people like MPAA, RIAA, publishers, and broadcasters to become clearing houses for information instead of guardians of it. Such a law would probably change the RIAA and others completely, but as with most people, this is probably not a bad thing.

      Sure, I doubt this will ever happen, but I strongly believe that most of the copyright issues that are we dealing with today is a direct result from the fact that corporations can hold copyrights.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    4. Re:Looking ahead... by dirk · · Score: 2
      My idea on copyright fixing is two parts:

      1) Reduce the terms on copyrights to 10 years from public release. There is no reason why it should take more than this time for copyright holders today to rake in the wealth they can get from this given the ease of obtaining legal copies of the work either from brick and morter or from the internet. Of course, this would be retroactive like all other copyright extention bills of late.


      This has a lot of bad implications though. Think of all the small hits and one hit wonders in the eighties. Now think of all the eighties compilations that are being sold right now. The only person that would make anything from them would be the people who put together the CDs. I think copyright is definitely too long as it is, but I think that 10 years is too short. Possibly 30 years. By that time any music is considered an "oldie" and would not have much life left in it commercially.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  4. Dont Forget the Publishers by szyzyg · · Score: 2

    Every piece of music has two copyright holders - the big record labels have settled out of court... but the publishers still haven't made any legal moves yet..

    My guess is mp3.com will have to move away from mp3s.

    1. Re:Dont Forget the Publishers by Greg+W. · · Score: 2

      My guess is mp3.com will have to move away from mp3s.

      No, the MP3 file format isn't the problem. And the legal MP3 files that mp3.com distributes aren't the problem.

      All this fuss came about when mp3.com started offering a service that let you download MP3-encoded versions of songs from CDs that you had purchased. Essentially, they were trying to save you the time and effort of ripping and encoding them yourself. (From my perspective, this would've been a loss of time -- it's faster for me to rip and encode than to download.)

      As I understand it (never having used the service in question), they gave you an MP3 under either of two conditions:

      1. You inserted a CD-ROM that you owned, and special software (Windoze only at first, though I think they may have introduced a Linux version later) did a CDDB-style checksum of the CD and then permitted you to access the MP3 versions of your CD's songs on mp3.com.
      2. You purchased a CD online (through mp3.com maybe -- I'm unclear on this part), but hadn't received it yet; mp3.com allowed you to download the tracks in MP3 format so you could listen to the music you had purchased even though you hadn't received the physical media yet.

      I think this was an extremely gutsy move on mp3.com's part. If I had been them, I wouldn't have dared to try it. But I guess it was one of the ways they were trying to probe the boundaries of the copyright laws and see what could and could not be done.

  5. They knew this was coming by maninblackhat · · Score: 2
    I don't expect this will curtail mp3.com's activities in terms of allowing garage bands and private, non-contracted groups a place to share their music with others and have it heard. This is simply related to the myMP3.com service...which i'm SURE they knew was going to prompt a lawsuit when they set it up.

    Had they set it up so that you actually had to transfer the MP3 files to them yourself, there would not have been a lawsuit. Other companies are utilizing that sort of thing now - including Nullsoft, a division of AOL/Time Warner. The problem is that they brought this one on themselves by using a system which sounds good in theory but is a lawsuit magnet in reality.

    Lest anyone forget, the RIAA's ultimate goal is to eliminate the MP3 format entirely. Remember, they sued Diamond to keep the Rio off the market - a device which simply plays MP3 files. They will ultimately be unsuccessful...but IMHO the MyMP3 service was set up with the full expectation that they would be sued over it.

    --
    "Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
  6. Re:Sad by Lucretius · · Score: 5
    Well it's a sad day. Now we're going to have to pay royalties for music that has already been purchased and is being used within fair use guidelines. Shit.

    This is not what this means. The reason that mp3.com got in trouble was that they were giving you their copy of the music without paying royalties to the record companies.

    Here is the rational. Any two rips of a track on a CD will produce different mp3's due to changes in variables beyond our control (unless somehow you find a way to control everything). In this way, the court is able to see an mp3 much like a copy of an old LP onto tape, each copy is a bit different.

    Thus, when mp3.com makes a rip, they have in effect converted the music into another format (this is legal). However, they then give this legal copy away to people who have "proof" that they own the CD already (this is illegal as it is not in fair use to give away a fair use copy to someone else).

    The best analogy I can give to this is that of a radio station. They convert the music they have purchased and convert it to another form, then pass it out over the radio waves. However, they can't do this for free, they must pay a fee to the record companies for the music they play, because they have given their "fair use" copies out for free (even to some people who own copies of the music).

    This is why other places which offer to store mp3's which you rip aren't getting in trouble, because they are offering you a way to store and play your own fair use copies. So mp3.com was not letting you play music within your fair use guidelines and that is why they got in trouble. This is a case that I personally think was decided correctly, in a legal sense. I think its kinda screwed up that this doesn't work, but hey, the law hasn't had time to catch up with the new ideas yet.

  7. Re:Why? by dirk · · Score: 2
    Well that's not really the point. I don't even play mp3s all that much since my computer is getting a little old. The point is that I don't want the record companies having that much say over what I can and cannot do with a CD that I purchased. The fact that I never even used my.mp3.com has nothing to do with it.


    They really have no say over what you can do with your CD. You can rip it to MP3, put those MP3s elsewhere and play them. You can upload them to your web site, download them at work and play them there. You can do anything you want with your CD except for distribute the music on it. It's the same concept that says I can't buy a book and make photocopies and give them to people. You own what you have bought, which is the CD, you don't own the content, so you aren't free to do anything with the content other than use it for the purpose it was sold for, which is to listen to. Other than in the area of redistribution, the record companies can't tell you what to do with your CD.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  8. Re:That's it. The "revolution" is over. by sulli · · Score: 2

    Hardly. SDMI is crap. MP3 is not crap but is a very useful format. MP3.com used Sony's recordings without permission, so they're being forced to pay royalties for these recordings in the future. The format is unaffected.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  9. protecting who? by The+Queen · · Score: 4

    "This settlement affirms and upholds the right of copyright owners to be paid for the use of their works on the internet,"

    Let us not forget, that means Sony, not Bruce Springsteen.

    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  10. This is a Bad Thing? by muldrake · · Score: 2
    Really. Look at all these massive settlements. Obviously mp3.com couldn't come to these settlements unless there were some reasonable expectation of them being able to pay it.

    One thing this shows is that it would have probably been cheaper to come to an agreement BEFORE starting to take in dough using questionable IP policies, but from the amount of money mp3.com is expecting to be able to cough up, there is obviously money to be made in this.

    As for the free beer crowd, I don't see how this handles the numerous decentralized free file sharing utilities out there, or makes Freenet any less viable.

    But if mp3.com expects to rake in huge sums of cash I frankly am not going to weep for them if they forced by a court to cough up the profits, even to scumbags like Sony, RIAA, etc.

  11. Got Lots of mp3's - Go to Myplay.com by szyzyg · · Score: 2

    Unlike mp3.com you store material you can store anything you want - rather than what mp3.com has licensed.....

    I wonder how much disk storage myplay could buy with the huinderds of millions that mp3.com is spending on licensing?

  12. Re:Wired News Link and more! by szyzyg · · Score: 2

    Hasn't myplay.com trademarked the term 'digital music locker'?

  13. Re:Sad by gfxguy · · Score: 3
    Thus, when mp3.com makes a rip, they have in effect converted the music into another format (this is legal). However, they then give this legal copy away to people who have "proof" that they own the CD already (this is illegal as it is not in fair use to give away a fair use copy to someone else).
    But you see, I don't believe that, and I don't believe that if this went all the way to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court would say it's not fair use to obtain a copy of a song that you are entitled to because you have paid the copyright holder for that fair use.

    Minor differences in mp3s of the same song because they were ripped from two diffent copys of the CD, or because of different compression schemes, or whatever, is really quite ridiculous.

    I know what the law says, but in this case it's merely a technicality. I believe the Supreme Court would find this hair splitting as ridiculous as I do. After all, we're not talking about different versions, or remixes, or anything else, and unless quality control at the pressing plant is horrible, their should be no discernable difference in encodings.

    So, again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that this is the point of contention, and it ultimately takes copyright, which grants fair use, and splits some fine hairs and creates a technicality. It's not in the spirit or intent of copyright law.
    ----------

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  14. Booger by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    Not all cassettes and CDs are identical. There are some that have different songs or intros. For some you have to buy both the CD and the cassette to get everything.

    If you've got a cable modem or dsl you can download an MP3 in 30 seconds, why spend 5 minutes or more to rip and encode the song when you can download it?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  15. Re:Wired News Link and more! by Azog · · Score: 2

    Actually, Slashdot did a story on this way back when MyMP3.com started up, and some people reverse-engineered part of the beam-it process.

    Apparently, it was actually quite well designed. The server would request a random assortment of sectors from the CD, and the client had to send them back. This doesn't take long, but if you don't have the CD theres no way to supply the correct information.

    So it was actually quite difficult to dupe the server.

    On the other hand, it would be pretty easy for you and a friend to swap CD collections one afternoon and each add eachother's CD's.


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

    --
    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
    "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
  16. Makes sense to me: other plaintiffs by yerricde · · Score: 2

    The RIAA is not just Sony. Other labels are plaintiffs in this suit, and they still want their share.
    <O
    ( \
    XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  17. Re:Good for Indies by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    Good for you :) I went and gave all your songs full downloads (except netscape suicided in the middle of the last 9 meg one- note to non mp3.commers, if you download people's full songs it helps them out in the stats and PFP more than streaming listens) and I'm getting a huge kick out of them :) The rhythmic dislocations of 'Pipe' are just outrageous, and I really enjoy your take on the 'trance' genre *evil cackle* much fun, strange music! Plus your bassdrums really kick. Good work :) you've probably already seen my stuff (in my link- everybody but Jon Katz has seen it by _now_) but if not I'd probably direct you to 'Water Dragon' as the only thing that is truly weird enough to sate your appetites, that and 'Bone Dragon' and maybe some of the lead guitar on tracks like 'B17 Flying Fortress' :) damn, it's nice to hear more music that- well, I'll quote Frank Zappa off the cover of Absolutely Free- "This tree is UGLY and it wants to die" no, wait, I meant "kills on contact" no- ah, here, the line I was looking for was, "You must BUY this album now- Top 40 Radio will NEVER EVER PLAY IT (buy this thing)"

    Good advice for us all! ;)

  18. What will this mean for my.mp3.com? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I have a bunch of CD's "beamed" to my.mp3.com. Ever since the lawsuit they've been greyed out, and unplayable.

    So, the settlement with Sony should mean that soon, I can play any Sony artist CD's once more from my.mp3.com.

    But since they are licenced to play all of Sony's music library, does that then mean I can essentially play any Sony CD for free from my.mp3.com, or will I still have to "beam" up my own CD's?

    In a side note, I wonder if it would be legal for myplay.com to combine multiple mp3 versions of the same song into one copy (or a few for different bit rates)?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. And how much did Sony pay to movie cos. for VCR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    How much "damages" in dollars did Sony pay to movie companies or to the MPAA (before Sony became a move company and bought Columbia Pictures) for its movie piracy device known as the VCR back in the late 70s? Answer Zilch. As usual justice is only for those with deep pockets.

  20. But Sony promotes MP3 piracy! by Mignon · · Score: 4
    A sales flyer in my Sunday paper advertises several Sony MP3 players with the line "Download music from the internet!" OK, so I exaggerated a little - Sony probably didn't write the ad, but they are well aware that they can make tons of money from MP3's - that's why they're making MP3 players.

    For Sony to sue MP3.com is a little like the guy who kills his parents then asks the judge for mercy because he's an orphan.

  21. Re:Why? by muldrake · · Score: 2
    The point is that I don't want the record companies having that much say over what I can and cannot do with a CD that I purchased. The fact that I never even used my.mp3.com has nothing to do with it.

    I agree on the general issue, however if you look at it they are not really saying you can't do anything with *your* mp3 files, they are saying that mp3.com can not do a nifty market-share grab by using other people's IP.

    If they planned this as a money-making venture they were not smart to avoid even good faith efforts at cutting a deal with someone. It would probably have been cheaper to go *just* to RIAA or one of the associations they could claim they reasonably believed had the rights to cut a deal about it, and agree to a royalties scheme. Then if they still got sued (probable), they'd have that to fall back on and RIAA (or whoever else got a cut) on their side instead of against them.

    It's all still mafia-style tactics in the music industry, especially when you start threatening turf.

    As for how this affects me, well, hell, I'll still do whatever the hell I please, and under whatever name I choose, and with whatever level of accountability I choose.

  22. Re:How much will MP3.com cost now? by Golias · · Score: 2
    You make a darn good point here. I wasn't a subscriber of my.mp3.com, but a lot of people loved it.

    Personally, I think we should write to various fair use crusaders from both parties (Orin Hatch of Utah is emerging as one potential champion...), and say the following:

    My.MP3.com was the first widely-used method of simply space-shifting digital music via the net. The purpose was to allow users to access the content of albums which they purchaced from anywhere. In many ways, using this service is no different than making a tape of your CD to listen to in the car. As current law exists, such a service can not be performed without paying additional fees to the record companies. It should be clear to you that this violates the spirit of "fair use", and the law should be reformed to reflect the rights of the consumers.

    While I am unconcerned about the fate of specific companies like MP3.com, I am very interested in my own personal rights to make remote archives of music that I buy, and to retain my rights concerning whatever media content I purchace.

    I ask that you take the lead in revisiting copyright laws like the DMCA in the next Congressional session, and keep me posted on your progress. Enclosed find a check for $50 to aid in your future re-election efforts.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  23. my.mp3.com is just like radio, I guess by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    Okay, let me get this straight. If I buy a Bruce Springsteen CD, and then want to listen to it on MP3.com, they have to pay Sony again to allow me that priviledge?

    And if you buy the CD and then later you hear the song on the radio, the radio station still has to pay for the priviledge of broadcasting the song. My.mp3.com is being treated no differently than a radio station.

    And maybe that's the problem. The RIAA (and the law also, I guess) is treating transmission of a copyrighted work as "redistribution" even if the receiver already has the copyrighted work.

    Probably the whole solution to this is to wait a few years until broadband is more available. If you wanna keep your music at home and listen to it at work, just run your own personal server instead of using my.mp3.com. Not feasible for everyone right now, but pretty soon.

    On the plus side, though. If my.mp3.com pays Sony for rights to redistribute music, then does that mean they can transmit music even if the receiver doesn't have it? Can you (legally and rightfully) listen to the Springsteen MP3 from my.mp3.com even if you didn't buy the CD and do the challenge-response check? After all, Sony has been paid for it.


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:my.mp3.com is just like radio, I guess by rkent · · Score: 2
      On the plus side, though. If my.mp3.com pays Sony for rights to redistribute music, then does that mean they can transmit music even if the receiver doesn't have it?

      I think that'd be the only acceptable outcome. But think about how that would work. You'd sign up for the album as you used to, and listen to it "because hey, sony got their money!" But you could snag the streaming files and save an excellent-quality copy of the album for free (to you).

      Or, maybe MP3.com will start to charge for the priviledge.

  24. Re:Be honest and fair, that's all by Wah · · Score: 2

    No messy encryption, tracking, IDs, whatever. Just be honest and fair. Sheesh.

    sorry, but that won't ever work. You have to have the power of enforcement or rights will be abused. Personally I think it's very simple. Only people with the copyright may profit from protected materials (or licence to the copyrgiht). Others may traffic in those materials, but only at a net loss.

    --

    --
    +&x
  25. courts setting an example, again by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    Let me get this straight: 19-year-old CEO of MP3.com has to pay multinational billion-dollar corporation Sony $20 million because of copyright infringement? (Heh heh, sounds like the opposite of the 80's lawsuit with the woman who burned her crotch on a hot cup of McD's coffee and won multimill$$$)

    Doesn't this seem a bit like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer? MP3.com is wrong, they violated copyrights, but what the fuck... Another attempt by the courts to deter by example a-la Mitnick, perhaps?

    I guess this is reassuring because whenever an enemy strikes with such excessive force, and in such a state of panic, it means they are unsure of themselves and their future.


    ---
    Unto the land of the dead shalt thou be sent at last.
    Surely thou shalt repent of thy cunning.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  26. So? by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of bemoaning about the "revolution is over" and "goodbye MP3". This has no effect on MP3 the file format and only affects MP3.com the website. If their name was "Music.com" would we be crying out "now I can't listen to music anymore"? No.

    I have never once downloaded anything from MP3.com or used any of their services but I have many MP3 files (mostly ripped from my own CDs but some obtained from Napster and the like).
    --

    --
    Linux MAPI Server!
    http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
    (Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
  27. Re:That's it. The "revolution" is over. by generic-man · · Score: 2

    Actually, the founder of mp3.com bought the domain for about $1,000 from a man who had bought it because it contained his initials. However, they have been around for a few years, and they're no more a "domain squatter" than news.com, tv.com, computers.com, etc.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  28. 20 Million voters by MarkusH · · Score: 2

    I have been considering the issues of copyright infringement and what it could mean to the current election. Currently, infringement of copyright is against the law of the United States. But consider what would happen if a political party decided otherwise.

    If any of the third parties come out strongly against the DMCA and for limited copyrights (say 5 years as opposed to life + year-1929), then suddenly there are 20 million people who may just vote for them. It would be interesting to see whether or not Nader or Browne will come out against copyrights. It would be pleasant if one of the major candidates would do likewise, but with all that money from the movie and record industries out there, I kind of doubt that would occur.

  29. Re:Wired News Link and more! by generic-man · · Score: 2

    MP3.com did not provide a digital locker where you could upload your own MP3's. It would take many hours for Joe AOLuser to upload his collection of Britney Spears music that way. Instead, they provided a service called "Beam It" where you would insert a CD into your drive, and the disc info would be "beamed" to My.MP3.com. This certified that you did indeed own the CD. Once there, MP3.com would then let you listen to digital recordings (from its collection, not yours) of that CD that you say you own.

    Think now about how easy it would be to send bogus packets to dupe My.MP3.com into thinking that you own every CD ever created. You would be able to listen to music you don't own, which as we all know is a Crime Against Humanity.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  30. Re:Wired News Link and more! by / · · Score: 2

    It's your fair use to use MP3.com's system. The problem is, MP3.com had to copy and reencode a whole lot'a music to create their system, and that is the official copyright violation here.

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  31. Re:That's it. The "revolution" is over. by Wah · · Score: 2

    yup.

    the guy just bought a good domain, he is not in it for the revolution, just the pay-off.


    --

    --
    +&x
  32. Never underestimate the enginuity of freeloaders by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

    Nice quote from the latest issue of Scientific American that just showed up, article about will MP4 do for movies what MP3 does for music???

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  33. How's that for irony by ptbrown · · Score: 2

    Considering that Sony was the defendant in a major lawsuit that Napster, MP3.com, and 2600.com have used for citing precedent. And now they've taken the part of the plaintiff. Isn't that just discouragingly political? Yesterday's revolutionary is today's establishment.

    That's why if I were to ever run for elected office, it would be on the promise that my first official act would be to resign.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
  34. Re:20 Million?! by Greg+W. · · Score: 2

    I know you're just trolling, but I can't resist a coherent response.

    (you can forget all the second rate ramblin' noise that 'independent artists' make in daddy's basement)

    I'm sorry if your quest for independent music has not yielded the results you hoped for. Here are some of the mp3.com artists and songs that I enjoy. You might find them tolerable.

  35. How much will MP3.com cost now? by rkent · · Score: 5
    Okay, let me get this straight. If I buy a Bruce Springsteen CD, and then want to listen to it on MP3.com, they have to pay Sony again to allow me that priviledge? Oh, sorry, I didn't mean "buy" a CD, I meant "obtain a licence to listen to the music on that CD in whatever way Sony deems appropriate." Give me a break.

    So much for MP3.com being free... how much do you think they'll charge now? Of course, there's already plenty of reasons to boycott Sony anyway...