Launchcast Sued

siimat writes: "Move over Aimster, the RIAA also filed a lawsuit against Launch on Thursday. What's interesting about this one is that Launch does have licenses with the major record companies to broadcast their music; the problem is that Launchcast is too customizable. Imagine - playing the music listeners want to hear instead of the tripe the Record Giants have preselected for everyone! :-P"

Comments

Re:What Launch(Cast) Does

[MAXOMENOS]

Makes sense from the RIAA point of view. They spend way the fuck too much money Britney Spears and they want to recoup their costs; people buying records put out by some other band that they didn't blow as money on doesn't do it, because those bands will eventually earn more than their advance and actually collect royalties. The exception to this is Classic Rock (in case you were wondering why there are so many Classic Rock stations out there and all the contemporary music coming from the radio sounds like total shit).

What this lawsuit indicates, to me, is that the RIAA, for all their talk about copyright protection, is really just trying to adapt the Internet to their old, tired, payola-centric business models. It isn't going to work. The sooner they figure this out and adapt, the less expensive it will be for everyone involved. The worst thing that could happen from the RIAA point of view would be if a group of independent labels (Alternative Tentacles, Atomic Pop, etc.) with a sufficient pool of talent got together, licensed Launch's technology, and started their own Launchlike site. A company like that would soon become a major player, and the RIAA's constituent companies would be forced to (a) become like the independent, artist-friendly labels or (b) become unable to sign new talent and rely solely on their old recordings. It's a sure bet that they'll all choose (a), but they'll be playing catch-up once they make that decision. You do not want to play catch up in that business.

ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

Re:Makes sense

[Shadowlion]

It's not so much that perspective is needed, really.

Look at it this way. Right or wrong, the music companies have been suing almost everyone, and everything, as of late, including a lot of pet services that people enjoy. There are some things that probably deserved it (Napster), some that didn't (My.MP3.com), and some that are only peripherally relevant in comparison to some of the things the music industry has gone after (Aimster). However, as a result of being litigation-happy, people have come to view the music industry/RIAA as 800 lb. gorillas. Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.

So, when something happens that the music industry can legitimately sue over (licensing violation), a lot of people look at that and say, "The music industry has lied, cheated, stolen, and bribed their way to quashing stuff they didn't like - I hope those bastards deserve what they get!" and cheer for the guy in the wrong - even if they know the guy in the wrong is IN the wrong!.

As for living in a land where legal contracts are routinely flouted, you already do. That's why we have the court system. If you have enough money, you can flout contracts and get away scot-free. Contract law generally only helps the richest party to the contract in quashing violations by the less wealthy party or parties.


--

This is pathetic.

[Saige]

I think the RIAA is working really hard on trying to shoot themselves in the foot. By seeming to go after everyone and everything that doesn't play exactly the way RIAA wants them to play, people are going to get really tired of this big bully. It's one thing to go after people copying copyrighted songs, but to say it's a problem to let people have this level of customization? People are going to start seeing through the show they're putting on, all their claims, and see what they're really doing.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes. (Which is what radio has become anymore as the middlemen between the publishers and stations serve as little more than a means for the publishers to decide what songs get played, while the middleman gets rich for doing nothing - but then again, isn't that what the point of a middleman is?) It is totally possible that they could have signed some really stupid deal that they're breaking...

I need to go find out who all the RIAA represents so I can make sure to only purchase music that is independent of them...
---

What Launch(Cast) Does

[citizenc]

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes.

What Launch(Cast) does is this -- you start listening to music, which plays every different kind of genre imaginable. However, as you listen to them, you rate the songs -- yes, I liked Nine Inch Nails, no I didn't like Britney Spears, etc etc etc. Eventually, the system (which is errily accurate) figures out what kinds of music that you like, and stops playing the rest of the crap.

---

Well they did sign an agreement

[Sc00ter]

"The music lobbyist alleges that Launch's licenses with Universal, Sony, BMG and EMI do not allow for the level of interactivity and customization offered by LaunchCast, which allows users to decide how often they want to hear particular songs. After LaunchCast users rate songs, albums and artists, the service "learns" to play the types of music the user wants to hear."

Later on they say they are going to come to some kind of agreement. We don't know what they signed, so we can't really judge here. Lauch could have signed something that said that the user can't select what songs to play. This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.

--

Re:Makes sense

[rgmoore]

Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.

Maybe music is a vital part of life (I suspect that it's perfectly possible, if a bit less pleasant to live without it) but the music under the control of the RIAA most certainly is not. Try as they will, they can't stop you from singing, whistling, humming, or playing your own instrument, so music will continue to be available no matter what the RIAA tries to do.

OTOH, contracts are a vital part of our lives, whether you want to belive it or not. They form a vital way of forcing people to keep the promises that they made, and that's a big part of what keeps our society afloat. Without enforcable contracts, business as we know it would come to a crashing halt. All financial instruments currently in use depend on contract law to survive, for instance, so there would be no banking, no stock market, and no currency without it. The whole world would operate on the kind of no-good-faith basis that is so prominent in gangster movies, where the only way of ensuring that people keep their deals is the threat of doing something awful to them if they break their word. Since the legal range of awful things is pretty small, that would make everyone very reluctant to do business.

Re:Makes sense

[Srin Tuar]

but we can't live without music

So, you for example would be able to live without britney and backdoor boys? :P

Just trying to point out that the majority of the most popular "music" is a soulless, brainless cash crop mass manufactured and mass marketted.

The music isnt really the fundamental argument here. Its just the first of the great Personal Freedom Debates to come. The reason is because it can be traded and consumed so easily (thanks to mp3 and sound blaster).

And people can live without music, but they dont like to. (im posting this while listening to stuff i dl'd from mp3.com)

We can do something about this kind of thing.

[schwap]

This is and isnt a big issue. It is a big issue because it has become clear that organizations like the RIAA appear to have WAAAAYYY too much control over what we hear and how we listen to it. It is a big issue because we have handed them control. It is not a big issue, because, we as consumers, do not require music for our immediate survival.

How have we handed them control? We purchase the music from them. We listen to the radio stations they buy. I have a suggestion: Dont buy any more CDs, or tapes, or DVDs for a while. Go out to the park. Go see a local band, LIVE. Drop some money and start your own little recording studio with a Mac and a Tascam or Roland MultiTracker. Nobody has any more control over you than what you give to them. I dont like the RIAA or the MPAA, or Microsoft or oil companies; but there is something I can do about it, and if enough of us do something then, who knows what will happen?

Different brodcaster licenses...

[Xibby]

There are different licenses. For what they're doing, Launch probally signed the wrong license and got basic webcaster license. So they can loop a playlist that goes for 3 hours (minimum) without repeating, can't take requests, etc. I'm not well informed myself, but the RIAA's Licensing and Royalties page is a good place to start.

So why don't you figure out what kind of license Launch has, compare what the license covers to what their doing, then flame away. Just a thought...

Makes sense

[quantum pixie]

The license Launchcast purchased no doubt specifies the allowed usage. If they are acting outside of the prescribed boundries of the license, then the RIAA is following the only reasonable course of action.

I would venture to say that there are more important matters than free music, and contract law is certainly one of them. Although I will readily admit that I enjoy not paying for music, it is not worth living in a society where legal contracts are routinely flouted. Perhaps a little perspective is needed in this issue.

Re:Makes sense

[dorkstar]

No. I think you have lost your perspective.

Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.

Music influences how we think. It's a metaphor for sex. It's an educator. It's a disseminator of wisdom. To have music commodified into a soulless, brainless cash crop is more than a tragedy. To have a contract of law slightly breached is at most a misdemeanor, in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes the rule of law is wrong, but it cannot be changed. In such cases, it is morally justifiable to break it. Ask the founding fathers of America. Ask Ghandhi. I don't mean to melodramatize the issue, but the larger picture is that the culture of the human race is being co-opted and turned into drivel, not that some obscure legal bullshit was violated.

Now I see

[PhreakinPenguin]

So this is why I pay $14.99 for a cd, to cover the cost of lawyers and propaganda releases from the RIAA

--------------------------------------------------