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.
Anyone with half a brain should comprehend that if you release you music on one site, you can expect it to be posted to some other site.
I guess they should have used SDMI or something, oh wait, that wouldn't work either.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
If people cannot sue gun companies for what people do with guns, then I sincerely believe this lawsuit will be fighting an uphill battle trying to sue mp3.com for what other people did with their downloaded files.
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!
This should be interesting.....it'll all boil down to who the judge is and who cluefull/less he is.
Lets recap: the service that mp3.com offered required you to prove that you had the CD. They used their special little app that would then be queried by their servers for a number of random pieces from the CD. If all the pieces lined up, then you 'owned' the CD, and they put it in your locker for you. Even Bruce Scheiner (sic? i can't be bothered to look it up) evaluated their protocol and found it cryptographically secure.
So - You can only get access to the mp3's from mp3.com if you already own (or are at least IN POSESSION of) the CD. Therefore you could rip the mp3's for napster yourself. Getting a streamed version from them gave you nothing - except slowing you down.
But with the typical justice system they'll get reamed........ again..........
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?
This kind of litigation is ridiculous. It's merely an attempt to bleed more money out a dying company, and any judge with half a brain would realize the absolute dangerous precedence this would set. Anyone who merely touches a certain technology could be sued if the tech was used for copyright infraction. "Oh, those CDR manufacturers should be sued, since they're making discs that carry pirated material. They're accessories to infringement."
Once again, I say puuhleeeze. This whole attack on "piracy" is doing nothing but making the recording industry look bad. It pushes people to find better ways to circumvent the process and causes others to completely boycott legitimate music purchases all together.
Industry, find someway to make the customer happy without ramming lawsuits and unethical CD mods down our throats. Customers, support reasonable attempts at legitimate digital music, but let your voice be heard when abuse of the law and standards occurs. Until then, a lot of good people will lose out.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
I really don't like this trend of everyone and their dog suing MP3.com. I, and many of my friends, depend on MP3.com as a means of distribution for our music. I've also found it a wonderful place to find new music. 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. Even if people just click and download songs to try them out, we get paid.
I'm not going to be rich because of it, but for at least one friend of mine's band (The Brobdingnagian Bards: http://mp3.com/thebards), it's a really good step on the way to being able to make music for a living.
For all its flaws, it's a great service both to music fans and to musicians. I hope that a few bad apples won't ruin it for the rest of us.
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
Why? Because I was playing some MP3's that I downloaded from Napster in my car with the windows rolled down as I was driving down the street = unauthorized public performance. Honda should be ashamed. of themselves for robbing hard working artists this way.
RIAA will soon insist that car manufactures locked windows in the upright positions when music is being played unless it comes from a royalty-paying souce.
On a side note...this is why you NEVER EVER settle a case out of court. MP3.Com settled and has been taking up the ass ever since (insert obligatory goatse reference). The newest game in the music industry is to flaggelate the expired equinine. Napster is still fighting. And really, if they do lose, could they possibly any worse off than MP3.Com?
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
MP3.COM IS VIVENDI.
Did you not notice when they were bought out? Have you not read the contract/artist agreement mp3.com artists are required to agree to that gives Vivendi PERMANENT RIGHTS over the artist's music even after you leave? Did you not notice that they are leaving it open for mp3.com to insert promotional materials INTO that music via language that gives them carte blanche to edit and alter what you give 'em?
mp3.com IS the stranglehold of a major label. Vivendi. Read the contract- better yet, run it by an entertainment lawyer if you don't believe me. mp3.com DESERVES to be destroyed to keep people like you from mistakenly touting it as some kind of independent resource when it is now a wholly owned part of Vivendi and YOU PAY THEM to participate in the 'royalty' like programs they have- which, I might add, are arbitrary and obscure, meaning that they are free to simply never pay you!
Go ahead, people, sue mp3.com! You're really just suing Vivendi- which probably doesn't care whether mp3.com lives or dies. Buying out mp3.com was a purely strategic move, and now Vivendi artists top the charts at mp3.com, with indie acts actually kicked off the service and their 'money' withheld through trumped-up charges if they have the nerve to chart higher than the Vivendi acts... do some googling for 'Analog Pussy mp3 vivendi artist activity', see for yourself.
mp3.com are NOT YOUR FRIEND.