Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com Sued for 'viral' Copyright Infringement?
Are We Afraid writes "Apparently the RIAA isn't the only one looking to make money off of MP3.com. They have just been sued by a group of independent artists for, get this, "viral copyright infringement". What does that even mean???" They claim that people who downloaded MP3s from mp3.com contributed them to napster, so MP3.com owes them. It's really bizarre.
This is like laws that permit gun shops to be sued for selling weapons later used in crimes. Silly. Damn silly. Thank you, DMCA. You've opened up the Bottle of Stupidity and let the genie loose. It's now becoming quite apparent that the only way around this is to scrap every copyright law and develop a new set for today's methods of content distribution.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
Back in the glory days, I made a purchase at cheap-cds.com, and the CDs I bought were AUTOMATICALLY made available on my mp3.com account! Unfortunately, I only listened to them about 3 times each at work before mp3.com locked everything up in response to the Universal complaint.
Think about it: mp3.com was everything Napster claimed to be. "I have the right to space shift! I have the right to backup!" Well, mp3.com actually allowed for just those things, with (and admittedly cursory) verification that you actually owned the CD you were listening to. All arranged in neat lists, with high-quality mp3s and decent bandwidth. If, for example, cdnow had the option to charge an extra 50 cents or buck per CD to enable functionality like that, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
A much bigger concern with mp3.com, it seems, and one that's widely ignored, is the way they screw over their own independent artists. They take a big share and charge huge fees for services like "payback for playback," and you have to sign away all kinds of rights to put your stuff up there. But all this about "contributory infringement" (I can only assume that's what they meant by "viral"?) is hogwash. Bring back my online music locker!
Bzzzt. Wrong! If your wish comes true, these hapless artists will set a precedent for the legal validity of "viral criminal activity" claims.
How will you feel when the lawyers come after you, simply because you committed a lawful act that allowed someone else to commit a lawful act that in turn allowed someone else to commit an unlawful act?
You better hope that cowering under the covers in your bedroom doesn't enable one of your employer's subsidiary's employees to embezzle from the company!
"But the artists were robbed!" you say. "They deserve to get some money back!" Sure thing, pal. It doesn't justify them beating it out of me with a stick, though. Let them sue Napster, or some other actual "criminal". Getting robbed is no excuse for breaking the system. Unless they're anarchists, of course - in which case, they probably shouldn't have been sucking up to MP3.com in the first place. Posers.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
At least they aren't suing:
* Intel/AMD for providing chips that enable computers to function. Thus making Internet piracy possible.
* U Illinois for creating a means of accessing web sites where said info can be traded (watch out Berners-Lee!)
* The US government for funding the creation of the internet, which has enabled piracy to run rampant.
* My parents. For obviously not teaching me right from wrong.
I'm so sick of law suits I can't even tell if I was kidding....
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
You want the answer? Neil Stephenson knows. The only thing to be gained from such a lawsuit is a majority share (read: control) of the company. MP3.com screwed up, and now a consortium of independent artists are going to step up and try to do it better. This makes perfect sense. The RIAA is going to end up owning Napster, so the Indies need a way into the market, too.
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
While we're at it, why doesn't somebody sue MCI Worldcom, Sprint, and any other backbone provider for upkeeping the Internet which allows file sharing to occur in the first place?
I know you're saying this flippantly, but back in the day when the Web was still in its infancy, all these backbone providers saw this kind of thing coming and took measures to shield themselves from lawsuits. It's the "cowboys" out there like MP3.com and Napster (to name the most prominent 2) who didn't take legal precautions and now find themselves on the receiving end of the judicial system.
Think about it.
You must guarantee that, of all the people you encounter in a day, you do not kill, assault, steal from, or kill 100% of them. You must also guarantee that of everything you say, 100% of it is neither slander nor libel, nor someone else's work.
If you are a previous offender of any of these instances, the government assumes that you *can't* assume this by yourself, and you need to convince them that you can to get them off yoru back
What they should do is sue the record companies. The record companies sold the cds to the people, who then ripped the cds, and put the resulting mp3s on napster. After they sue the record companies, they should sue that Fraunhofer guy. Ooh! And they should sue God for allowing all this insanity to occur.
"I don't even go into record stores any more, simply because I appreciate being able to listen to the music I want to buy before I buy it."
You said it, pal; That's precisely why they get so worried about places like that.