Slashdot Mirror
Shielding MP3 Databases From Copyright Violations
Lost Soul writes: "Wired has an article on a
new law being proposed in the United States House of Representatives to immunize databases of songs a la mp3.com from copyright violations that are now plaguing the company and giving recording companies licensing fees they don't deserve. Please signal your support for this bill to your local representatives." It would protect databases that people could get access to if they had already purchased the CDs, as my.mp3.com was set up to do.
----[%snip]----
To : jmoakley@mail.house.gov
Cc :
Attchmnt:
Subject : Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000
----- Message Text -----
Dear Honorable John Joseph Moakley,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000.
You have have heard about MP3.com recently losing a lawsuit to the RIAA. The practice in question was MP3.com members scanning in their legally-purchased discs (to prove ownership) and MP3.com would then allow that particular member to listen to their songs wherevery they wish. I would like to emphasize that MP3.com required that you prove you owned the original. Unfortunately, MP3.com lost because MP3.com's copy is not the same physical copy as the customer's copy and is therefore illegal.
If this is difficult to fathom it is because it doesn't really make any sense.
The Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000 would allow a company to legally create a musical database:
""Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his floor statement introducing the new legislation." - Wired.com
I encourage you to support this bill and bring legislation up to speed with the technical capabilities of the internet.
Thank you,
Jason Desjardins
----[%snip]----
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
If the recording companies don't deserve money for promoting and selling recording than who does.?
The music studios don't deserve royalties in the my.mp3.com case. In case you didn't know Mp3.com debuted a free service called Beam-It at my.mp3.com. This service enabled people to play CDs from an online collection if they had previously proved that they own the CDs by having the CD in the CD-ROM drive and registering it.
Somehow the record labels felt that MP3.com owed them money for broadcasting music on the net without paying them licence fees similar to what Radio stations pay. This ignores the fact that all the people listening to the music already own the CDs being played. Of course all the members of the RIAA filed suit and MP3.com settled with most of them for about $20 million a piece except for Universal that pressed on with a lawsuit and won over $100 million.
The my.mp3.com will return but will be a pay service to offset the damage from the lawsuits. During Napster hearings certain Senators including Orrin Hatch realized that the RIAA was abusing copyright laws in an attempt to maintain a monopoly on legitimate means of digital distribution of music. The new laws that are pending indicate that Congress feels that the RIAA did not and does not deserve payment when people are accessing music they already own from an online site.
Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
Could the sneaky members of club-RIAA have planned it so they'd destory MP3.com while it was illegal, then make it legal and make money on the exact same idea?
Your rights as a music buying consumer are at stake. If you think the recording industry has entirely too much power, tell Congress! If you think Hemos should be banned from the internet, tell Congress!
Most issues before congress are decided by members voting in the way they think will get them re-elected, without any input from the constituency. The saddest thing about this is how easy it is to let your views be known.
People all over the world participate in their own governments at levels we in the U.S. are privileged to but don't. Participation in the governing process is a privilege. Failure to use it could be failure to keep it.
If you think G.W. is the greatest thing since sliced bread, register to vote before October 8 and vote in November. Similarly, if you think G.W. is a cocaine snorting, S&L crashing, frat boy weasel, register and vote. If you don't vote you have no right to complain when the candidate you loathe most gets elected.
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
How does one transmit "proof" of "lawful possession," and what proof is sufficient? Clearly, proof of possession is understandable, but "lawful possession?"