Slashdot Mirror
Internal MP3 Server? 1 Million Dollars Please
nkruse pointed out that our pals as the RIAA are breaking new ground. According to this Reuters Article, the RIAA has succeeded in collecting 1 million US dollars from Arizona based Integrated Information Systems. IIS apparently had a corporate MP3 repository on it's network. This is the first time I've heard about the RIAA doing this kind of thing. Looks like they're taking a page from the BSA handbook.
The MPAA is getting ready to sue people for having video of their kids on their house computer/server.
Well technically, it's copyright infrigment.
The more they do this the more enemies they will get and the less sympathy they will get from the public!!
It has to be... uh... stable! Yeah, that's it, stable.
It's not a right to redistribute copies of copywritten music or video without consent of the copyright holder. Violation of this can result in fines.
You listening, pirates?
I'm not sure why this is a problem.
A company promoting piracy is even worse than the individual person who feels it's OK to shoplift or steal music.
What type of "fair use" could possibly apply here?
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
When I first saw the story I about shit a brick. The company I used to work for was called the same thing, only based in Vegas with an office in Phoenix.
On a related note, is this what the country has come to? Now not only are software companies allowed to come into your business and snoop around for no reason, the RIAA is allowed to come in as well? If this was the governement doing this sort of thing it would be illegal. Everyone here has some form of mp3 repository at their officem especially if they are a sysadmin, the only question is the size of each of them.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
If they're taking a page from the BSA then they should be sending out tons of letters to Small Businesses holding them liable as well. The BSA was offering deals to infringers who "cleaned up their act" within a certain time limit and offered a discount on the software.
the question is, will the RIAA offer a discount to music infringers. >:)
Vital Idea
Everyone should go download 5 songs from CDs they would normally buy but aren't going to. Attack their business if they attack ours.
Visit BobtheKing.com it's perhaps the best thing I've ever made to waste your time with.
Sounds just like the BSA. "Tipped" off by an email...people who do shit like that deserve buckets of spam and power outages for the rest of their lives. Didn't people get told when they were young that no one like a tattletale?
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
Another perfect example of the record labels just wanting to suck more money out of us. If we brought our original CD's in, stuck them in a CD tower, and played them at work, that'd be legal, but using something slightly more advanced to store the music (like MP3 files) is considered illegal....
One of these days, the record companies are going to find themselves out of a job - artists will realise how useless the labels actually are, recording equipment will become too cheap for the record companies to justify their (huge) slice of the revenue, and we will finally see the end of this rubbish.
What's the difference in having an mp3 repository? Isn't that the same thing as having a boom box and a stack of cd's? I guess if the employees were burning discs for friends or something...
Does this million dollar buyout give the company to continue "illegally" obtaining Mp3s off the internet and distributing them on their server?
Or is this going to become a ritual? Bribe the RIAA, get off the hook for a while, bribe the RIAA, get off the hook for a while...
If they did get a future use clause, I'd love to see the agreement: "The RIAA hereby gives permission to the following company to download as much as they want! Rock on!"
"""
This sends a clear message that there are
consequences if companies allow their resources
to further copyright infringement,'' said
Matt Oppenheim, RIAA Senior Vice President,
Business and Legal Affairs.
"""
The message I heard:
Large, money-laden industry group can use a
broken legal system to easily take even more
money from others by leveraging antiquated
and ridiculous idea-ownership laws that need
sorely to be changed.
Now, if IIS was offering access to the server to its customers as part of their service fees, then I can see how that would be a problem.
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
The RIAA can point their legal guns at probaly every corporation in America. Is this just a publicity stunt to make an example of one company, or is it going to be their new business model ala' Xerox?
I sig, therefore I was.
If this was an internal server, how did the RIAA ever discovered its existance? I doubt the sysadmins were stupid enough to make the system visible from the Internet. And even if they were, they would have noticed the bandwidth usage :)
IIS apparently had a corporate MP3 repository on it's network
Is this an undocumented feature of IIS 5.0? And is it a good enough reason to switch from apache?
Forcing them to continue to use IIS would be punishment enough...
"We applaud IIS for accepting its responsibility and working actively with us to settle this case out of court."
I'd be clapping too, if I collected a cool 1 million just for writing a letter.
I'm sure the RIAA considers this a major victory. How much of the million bucks will go to the artists? You know, the people they are trying to protect. This has got the be to most expensive CD duplicating machine I have ever heard of.
I noticed that Integrated Information Systems had a dedicated server to serve up MP3's. Would the settlement reached $1M if it had just been some directories on NFS or Samba.
This kind of stuff will scare the business community in a serious way. You can be sure the software police will be given new gestapo powers real soon in a corporation near you.
Have to admit, IIS sounds very stupid in this. But $1M would buy a big stack of CD's (especially considering the discount you could get for volume)
they'll be sending lawyers to beaches and the countrysides and sue people who illegally share their music by not using headphones...
seriously, what's the difference between this and having a stack of CD and connect a very powerful AMP to all the speakers in the company?
is it illegal to share the music between your left and right ears?
I am sure that the Artists that were represented by the mp3 collection got the money! "Not Likely"
Tomorrow's Headlines should read RIAA steals 1 million from Artists.
Get a free ipod.
Uh, guys?
This is *not* the same as making MP3's of all your CD's to listen to from your PC while you're at work. The only way this would have been "ok" would be if every single employee owned all of those CD's.
I think the RIAA's policies stink, but in this case they had the right. Not liking them doesn't give you the right to steal from them.
Bryan
(who's going to do a scan of his networks tomorrow for MP3's to delete - if the users don't want me to find them they'd better stick them on the C: drive)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
This isn't all that different from what the various (c) organizations have been doing for some time. Most infamous was the 1996 effort by BMI/ASCAP to slap fines on the Girl Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the fireplace -- an effort that backfired in terms of the PR (and led Congress to specifically exempt the Boy / Girl Scouts).
(This article at GigaLaw provides some useful background).
I've heard IP attorneys compare these guys to the Mafia -- they basically go around extorting companies to pay them hush money and keep their attack dogs at bay. For large companies, the price of buying them off is cheaper than the price of hiring defense attorneys.
Everyone here has some form of mp3 repository at their officem especially if they are a sysadmin, the only question is the size of each of them
... from a company that let employees swap songs on an internal server ...
... IIS's company server dedicated solely to allowing employees to post and share thousands of copyrighted MP3 files ...
I think you may have misread, it's not that employees have their personal archives with them, it is that the company is letting them swap music, and that is something completely different. From the article:
Dr Evil: *raises finger* We will sue them for *pause* ONE MEELION DOLLARS! *silence*
I can see a company like IBM getting sued for sharing millions of songs amongst it's employees, but a small company (less than 15 people) that I know of used a simple non-published mp3 archive, where people had their own personal folders that they could bring music from home, so they could listen to it at work.
Though not enforced, theoretically, the only use is to allow individual listening to their own music on a storage facility greater than that of their own computer. It was more cost effective to have one big large hard drive then have a dozen large hard drives (not to mention the company was SCSI, so it would have been an administrative nightmare to upgrade all the machines this way).. Not to mention that the individuals worked on several UNIX machines, and could easily mount their drives as necessary in the different labs.
To make this legit, they could have restricted access to each mount, and thus no sharing would occur.. As I said, this wasn't enforced however.
How can a networked computer be allowed to legally space-shift legitamit media without fear of the RIAA / SS?
The real question here is that in a small company, does the RIAA really have jurisdiction. With a company that small, people would ahve lent each other CDs from time to time anyway (often duplicating onto cassette tapes, which has never been really refuted).
Should such a company be worried? Or is the gistapo getting closer to getting it's power stripped?
-Michael
-Michael
http://www.riaa.com/PR_Story.cfm?id=505
The RIAA's News section is definitely worth a look, in a know-your-enemy sense.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
average cd price: $16
We don't know much about the logistics so I'm making some assumptions here. Firstly I'm going to assume that they have at least three songs from each album at $16 per album. Since I'm sure the RIAA's stance is that you can't buy three songs off the album (I know, I know, Singles, etc, but come on.)
Lets do some math. $1,000,000/$16 = 62500*3 = 187500 songs! DAMN. That's a lot of songs.
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
If you brought your original CDs into your workplace and played them on your company's equipment, that'd count as a public performance, and would also be technically illegal. Sad but true.
I recall a scene with the hobbled Enterpise-D is tilting towards re-entry in "Generations." The emotion-chipped Data says it best:
Oh Shit.
Now these people have means and precedent to do this to any corp where they can pay off someone to squeal.
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Here is a link to the yahoo copy of the same reuters story:
n m/ 20020409/en_nm/media_piracy_dc_7
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
How did the RIAA know that this companys' mp3s were pirated, and how did they prove it? MP3s on a local network are quite easily legit.
For example, they could make backup copies of their cds which are played by their employees, instead of them having to mess with cds.
Under U.S. copyright law, you are allowed to make "backup" copies of your media. This means that you don't give away the backup or the original separatly. If users of this network only played the backed up cds live, there's no case for RIAA.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Just a little interesting part of the article, the RIAA is stepping on some major dollars here by screwing with Hollywood's connections. Maybe they aren't working for the same goal after all....
Can be found here. It is the most convincing argument I've yet read that the RIAA is doing the right thing.
Things that come from cows are inherently funny. I'm capped; feel free to disagree.
(-1, Dadaist)
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
If you were born with the unfortunate ability to hear sounds and thus music, you should.. no YOU MUST pay the record labels.
During your life you might accidentally overhear music that you haven't paid for and thus rip off "the artists".
Thus, the TAX will be an innitial fee on birth, based on your preliminary hearing tests. If found to have the ability to hear, you will be charged the TAX as an annual % of your income. Should you have no income within the first 10 years of your life, the record labels will render your hearing useless to stop your criminal activities...
This should address all those MP3 and other music piracy problems at the source..
I have an internal MP3 server of my own in my home. Blocked at the router level from the net. It contains nothing but MP3s taken from the racks of CDs in my living room. The only other user of it beside myself is my Wife. Both of us own iPods.
I'd still bet the RIAA would come after me if it knew of its existance, and claim that it overrode joint property laws.. no skip that.. they go straight for Fair use being totally illegal in the first place.
Can somebody here explain to me how what this company was doing is illegal, yet what libraries (public or private) do is legal?
Just because a library is a public resource does not exempt it from copyright law. They facilitate [hell - they exist solely for the purpose of] sharing books, music, magazines, whatever. And I think it is important to note that this company was not selling copyrighted material - it was only allowing its employees to exchange music.
So what is the distinction?
That link is wrong. See the REAL BSA here:
http://www.bsa.scouting.org/
a million IT managers fire off this email:
"Do we have anything like that running around here? Can you look into this please?"
Lets see... all "protected" cds coming out can only be played on MICROSOFTS media player (those that can be played in a computer anyway, but thats another article..).
IIS=cmon, you know they're running MS.
MS shows up for a salespitch or something, pokes around, finds this server. MS reports back to RIAA about said server. RIAA slaps MS on the back and promises to release 5 new albums which will only play in WMP!
RIAA gets a million bucks and their rocks off, MS gets more market domination out of it.
Kickbacks?
Okay, I have to say I am in favour of the RIAA winning on this...
:) But I don't know many companies that will buy CDs for their employees.
:)
My only question is how did they get access to find out? A police officer can't search a house without a warrent, and anything they find without a warrant is inadmissable in court? Unless someone sqealed on the company. If the RIAA used illegal means (ie, hacking) then they're just guilty of another crime. But alas, I don't know how they found out, just that it's a little suspicious that they did.
And stupid company, you don't set a machine up specifically for that. Maybe turn a blind eye and pretend you didn't know employees were using a server like that, but don't endorse it!
Or if the company had the server open to the world.
It would have been okay if all of the music had been purchased by the company
I like the comparison someone made about the RIAA to the mafia... organised crime has now become legit!
So when I'm 55 will I be able to speak out of turn?
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Such RIAA actions send a chilling message to the world. It is hard to see how such non-profit-making activity as employees sharing music at work would constitute "piracy". But perhaps sending a chilling message is just what they want: if computer science professionals can't do anything interesting with media, then they won't have to deal with new developments like MP3 or Napster.
I checked through my Boy Scouts of America handbook thoroughly, and I can't find anything in it about the RIAA or MP3's. Odd.
This may be considered good news, if they continue this trend. Why? It's a whole lot better to attack people or businesses that are actually doing something illegal (though the legality of this is in question, the fact remains that they settled before it was taken to court, the law cannot stop that) than to attack KaZaA, Morpheus, Napster, Gnutella, etc. just for being tools that are capable of helping a person do something illegal.
To me, this is like putting drunk drivers in jail for killing a person in an accident, instead of suing the crap out of Ford for making the car that has the potential to kill people if used incorrectly.
The speed of time is one second per second.
It only takes a few seconds for Drive Setup to initialize the 8GB "MP3 Jukebox" drive I have in my G3 at the office...
So is this a fine or has it collected royalties? Are they then saying IIS can proceed and leave the songs on it's server? It sure sounds like the company paid for licenses to me.
IIS has a long history of problems.. They have a lot more than the RIAA to worry about.
All the worlds indeed a
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, it is still legal to have an MP3 jukebox in your home and let people use it there. Now, it would clearly be violation of current copyright law if a business played MP3s for customers (say, a restaurant). But if employees let friends and coworkers to their music over the network at work, what's the problem? Does the fact that this takes place at work all of a sudden make it commercial? It seems to me they went after IIS because they had deep pockets and caved in easily. I would have liked to see this play out in court. And we have to wonder what's next: is the RIAA going to raid our homes? Will we have to pay fees based on the number of people present when we play music?
No no, BSA is "Bitch-slappers Anonymous." Here, I'll loan you my handbook...
They claim to protect the artists...but...where does the money go when they "earned" it by protecting the rights of an artist who is dead?
Simply put, this is huge.
If I owned a company I would immediatly outlaw mp3's just as I would with pirated software. From a financial perspective this is simply too large of a financial and legal threat to deal with. Banning mp3's in the workplace is the only sane answer.
Far too often the workplace (and its bandwidth) is used for obtaining mp3s. I can't think of a company that I've worked for that I haven't seen someone downloading/sharing/storing mp3s (legal or not). A quick poll of a few friends confirms the same for them.
Time to add *.mp3 to my enterprise anti-virus software, not because I want to but because feel the need to CYA for my employer.
In 1991, Warner was a defendant in the case of rap artist Biz Markie after he was accused of copyright violation for "sampling" a track...One of the defenses they put forward was that they "should be excused from liability for infringing copyright because others in the rap music business were also [sampling music].".
Maybe poor IIS didn't know about the "everybody's doing it" defense.
If I bring my CDs into work, I can play them on a boombox loud enough for the whole office to hear. That's called "fair use"... All these people did was use the corporate network to timeshift the playing of a few CDs
From one anonymous coward to another... If you're playing music for your whole office to hear. That's an unlicensed public performance.
Its also not timeshifting... I think you mean 'spaceshifting' (not a recognized legal doctrine, mind you) if then entire office has access to an mp3 file that originated from one disc. Let's stick to defending the good guys, okay?
How did they find out? Secure your boxen!
No sig for you!!
... exactly how the whole mess got started??
I'm a minister!
Forgive me for not being better educated on this but can they legally obtain a warrant for suspected copyright infringement? Furthermore, what about the data itself? Specifically, what if it wasn't in MP3 format? Suppose the files were stored via a proprietary file/compression system leaving the data totally useless to anyone who doesn't have a key it can't be proved that anyone has a "key"? Is it still piracy or just useless data? Woud this hold true for streaming data as well? Better yet, why not stego them into client-attorney documents ;) thereby rendering them (AFAIK) un-seize-able even with a warrant. This is why projects like Freenet are so vital and intriguing. Does anybody know more about the legality of this or other ways of further muddling the legal issues involved? has anybody ever called 1.800.BAD.BEAT?
As long as the accused prostrate themselves before the RIAA, fuzzy precedents like this will become as established as any other rule of law. Of course the price of legal wrangling is prohibitive, but in case you didn't notice, ethics cost extra these days. It's a difficult situation that cuts across many extra-legal conflicts.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I think it's time to talk with your money. Become an EFF member.
Obviously Joe Average does not see the relevance of this, and I don't think you and I personally are going to convince them. We need to have people handle that who can.
Organisations like the EFF have the right people and can do things such as counter-lobby all the (in my opinion rediculous, and should be unlawful) lobbying the record and motion pictures industry is doing.
It would certainly help if they got 10$ for every nasty comment made about the RIAA/MPAA here.
In the meantime, it would be nice if them P2P networks where finally used for things other than distributing copyrighted material. We need to stop giving those assholes amunition.
It's == It is
Its == Possessive version of its
The word 'its' is a possessive pronoun (yours, mine, theirs) as opposed to a prossessive noun and thus does not follow the rules set out in Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots. Have a nice day.
Oh, wait.
--Ford Prefect
Is there any way to legally set up a MP3 server in a company setting? Can you buy a site license for a music CD? Or better yet, register your company as some kind of radio station, broadcast all you want and then pay ASCAP and BMI fees. There has to be a way...
and how the hell did the RIAA find out about this server anyway?
the article saliently mentions "dedicated" whenever it talks about the server - does that make a difference or something? IANAL so just curious.
sic transit gloria mundi
So who was the employee that got so ticked off at the company that he ratted out his employer to the RIAA? Is there a bounty now on piracy?
Ka-Ching.
This fine is preposterous.
I worked for starcd which recognises music from the radio. We got a quote to buy every album that a song had been played from on the radio in the last five years five or more times. It was just over $100k.
How can they possible justify a settlement of this size. This is the most unvelievable abuse the RIAA has demonstrated of it's corporate massivity. I have an mp3 repository, and I own every CD that I have a recording of. I would like someone to explain to me how this doesn't constitute fair use?
I bet they only settled because RIAA is too large to fight. So much for the American justice system.
-
Everyone is living in a personal delusion, just some are more delusional than others.
You can't defend this company and say the RIAA is being over zealous.
Can you say with a straight face that every employee in that company owned every CD of music reflected on that internal server? That is just bullshit.
This violates the fair use law and you guys know it.
moreover since this company was so stupid as to allocate company assets to serve copyrighted music without paying for that right has broken the law. period. 1 million dollars is getting off easy
Sure employees will listen to music in their offices using their computers. That doesnt mean they should make their PCs music servers nor should the FUCKEN COMPANY provide an outlet for central music sharing.
How flippant, ignorant, and totally irresponsible of them.
You don't like the law? Do something about it.
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
...that IIS was in the wrong in this case. But I hope I'm not the only one who's growing weary of RIAA's smug, sanctimonious, self-serving statements:
"We applaud IIS for accepting its responsibility and working actively with us to settle this case out of court.''
I can't help but read "...working actively with us..."' as "...bending over..."
Bleh.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
I do think the $1M figure is pretty much insane though.
My beef with RIAA and MPAA is NOT with their opposition to Napster-ish music distribution; It's their repeated attempts to legislate mandatory crippling of consumer electronics (and outlawing of certain kinds of programming) to protect their interests at the expense of my rights.
I would MUCH rather see RIAA taking the kind of action described in the story - going after actual "pirates" - instead of presuming before the fact that every consumer is a thief who cannot be trusted with uncrippled hardware.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
With one of the last /. postings being on DDoS, someone would do that to the RIAA...
The RIAA fills me so full of vinegar and bile that I can hardly think to express myself.
Well hopefully this will just attract more attention to the independent music scene. I refuse to buy an Album that has anything to do with the RIAA nor will I support and artist who represents them.
I hope someone over there is reading this. I am a good customer of your fool. I have over 750 discs in my collection. I used Napster as a tool to discover new bands. You freaks seem to think that I should pay 17 + dollars to check out a group i know nothing about? You are on crack.
I am not anti-corporation. I am anti-stupidity. And by the fact that you turn down free organic publicity you have more than proven your stupidity. I admit that some people who would have bought CD's won't now because of peer to peer sharing. But many of us would have bought even more. I now I hope more of us won't.
Burn
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
Nah, if they did that, they'd just build a crystal radio from a toilet paper roll and avoid all this MP3 crap.
Just thought of a way around this.
Let's say we set up an economy within our office. We buy and sell CDs on demand. At the beginning of the month, you bring in whatever CDs you want to sell. You deposit them into the office trust, where they're "converted" to a more economically liquid form, onto a digital hard drive.
Now all we need is some simple software that "trades" CDs. Whenever you want to listen to one of the many volumes in the repository, you buy it on demand. You real-time trade one of the CDs you deposited in exchange for the ownership of the one you want to listen to.
The only hitch is when multiple people want to buy a CD that no one wants to sell, or when no one wants to buy any of the CDs you brought in so that you don't have any purchasing/exchange power to buy any of the others.
Obviously, in a small office, there's not a large enough "economy" to make this work, but for a 1,000 person corporation, it's unlikely that you'd ever have to wait more than a few minutes. Especially if everybody brought in enough CDs. The redundancy along would keep things rolling. Now what if it were multi-corporation?
IANAL, but this seems like a perfectly legal brokerage-type method to share music without breaking the law.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
The funniest thing about this article from Reuters is that Reuters has a huge MP3 archive on their servers. I doubt many people know about it as they inherited it from Bridge Information Systems when they bought it. I know because I used to work there. Not that I was a contributor.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It's not that different. It's copyright infringement...plain and simple.
it would have been cheaper for them to buy all the Cd's and then tell the RIAA that they own all the records!
First, under this circumstance, my copyright law would probably still penalize the company, but 1 million dollars is step unless they had a lot of MP3s (hundreds of thousands).
I would like to see a law where not only is fair use a protected right, but companies that try to inhibit fair use are subject to a penalty (i.e. the copy protected CDs, CSS, etc...). Now this wouldn't include things like WPA, as it doesn't inhibit fair use (even though it sucks, it still can be legal, you can backup the disks, and the right to backup is what I'm currently concerned with).
Now on the piracy end, people who make available for download music for which they have no right to distribute, are assessed a fee to pay to the company infringed upon, maybe equal to or slightly greater than the cost of the song proprotional to the CD is was copied from per download tha can be proven. for people downloading music, the proprtional price of the track plus a low fee (maybe $0.50 per track). Now for downloaders, this is fine, as even if they were caught, they would get a great deal. Record companies would scream abou tthis, but the fact of the matter is they don't need to spread out the good tracks to typically 1 to 3 good tracks per CD full of pure crap no one likes and charge extra for the crap. I know singles are sold, but they can never resist putting at least one song of crap even on the CDs. Some CDs are exceptions, but mostly you have to pay out the ass for a litttle bit of good stuff.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Would the RIAA have a claim if the company in question were only to put songs which it's employees owned copies of onto the server? Furthermore, if the company required that employee to put their CD into a vault and restricted the server so that it could only stream the files and indeed only stream them to one person at a time? This would allow more people access to the music, but shouldn't be much different in principle to a library. Just a thought....
...and now I'm trying to figure out what's appropriate. You make a good point when you say "If we brought our original CD's in, stuck them in a CD tower, and played them at work, that'd be legal."
I can set up my new server two ways (there are some grey areas, so I'll just work at the extremes):
- I can allow users to upload and download music through FTP and file sharing, and give them the ability to stream it to their desktop through a web interface. This means low maintenance for me, as everyone manages the collection, but I can't keep a handle on whether or not the mp3s came from legally owned CDs, and I can't keep track of who downloads music files.
- I can allow users to upload music to a dropbox, then manually move them to another folder from which they can stream it to their desktop through a web interface. This means high maintenance for me, but I can keep a handle on the legal issues and nobody can download the music.
I assume that the first scenario is a big no-no, as it's essentially a local Napster situation. I also assume that the second scenario is OK, as it's essentially a "bring your CDs to work and store them in a common area" approach. In fact, it's more secure, as my coworkers can't get physical access to CDs that they would "borrow" and copy.
Then again, it's probably safe to assume that, if the RIAA gets what it wants, we would be arrested if I put my headphones on your head and played you a song from my walkman...
IIS...
:)
now that they are on the map, just watch that poor cat being squashed by all the BULL(dogs)
In their 10-K filling:
---
The valuation model for companies such as ours has changed, and our inability to achieve profitability may continue to materially adversely affect our stock price.
---
No sh*t!
If you look at their recent chart" You notice that they don't really have much left downward to go. So basically you won't see RIAA pulling that kind of stunt on big corporation (and I can tell you quite a few big places that I worked or have some friend working that are doing the same things, and generally they have more hardware/storage at their disposal for such things than smaller companies).
This just shows how mad and especially HYPOCRITE this is. Anyways, nothing much new here, bullying starts in schools and continues in the adult world, big guys with no brain picking on small intelligent ressources/people.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I think this is the building that you see on your right hand side if you take the Broadway on-ramp onto westbound I-10. Nice looking building that says iisweb.com on the front.
Funny, up until now I associated the letters BSA with the Boy Scouts of America, not those scum. Sounds like the boy scouts need to whoop some Business Software Alliance ass and take back their name (or rather, their acronym).
*Quietly goes to work early and removes the internal MP3 server*
Ahem, did you see that snow the other day? It's April for the love of God!
I'm rather disappointed in the postings on this....even from Slashdot. Assuming the article is correct, and I know that's a big assumption, this company basically sponsored piracy. They paid for a server specifically for music sharing. That's a "bad thing". There is a very big difference between someone bringing in MP3s and a company sponsoring the sharing of them. The company puts itself at VERY large risk for such things. I'm a network admin at a medium sized company and I don't even allow Gnutella/Napster/Kazaa clients to run...at all.
This isn't fair use. They didn't let a friend borrow the CD. They ripped the CD and put the files on a server for everyone to get. Fair use may have a case should there have been software on the software to let a user "check out" a song and while it was checked out, no one else could access it. But I really don't think that was the case, do you?
I've known companies that had MP3 servers, but they were always known by the users. They weren't ever really recognized by management. I bet many of those go away tomorrow morning when word of this gets out.
The RIAA should start going after the people who are really hurting the music industry: All those Civic's driving around with the huge sound systems, that you can hear from blocks away!
Not that I think this company should have been fined, but how much of this will the artists be getting?
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
Yeah, they're bastards. Always camping and earning merit badges--you've got to keep your eye on them.
So the RIAA is once again saying their sticking up for the artists, but how much exactly did the artists get out of this one. 4...5...maybe 6 dollars?
Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
When I first read the headlines in the article I thought the RIAA was going after Internet Information Server with the help of the BSA... Boy Scouts of America... What an evil plan!
That aside, I concur with an opinion earlier stated that at least they're going after users in this case. Frankly its very easy for me or any other one of us to remain fairly anonymous and out of sight. The RIAA can't possibly track people. If you're so obvious about doing something illegal you deserve to be caught.
Odd note: I know the owner of an indie label who asked when Napster was going down for someone to snag as much music for him as they could. Incidently one of the first to jump on a lawsuit against Napster.
What the RIAA has an easier time doing, little basis for, and a lot of success in inspiring has been the building of more trivial protection schemes into consumer electronics we can easily circumvent. Which of course only serhrefto drive up electronics prices in the end...
> How much of the million bucks will go to the artists?
Is it really the job of the RIAA to collect missed royalties for those they represent or merely to minimize piracy so people will go out and buy the music of those they are representing?
If the latter is the case, which I think it is, I'm not sure they are obligated to give any of the money to the artists. The $1M is sort of for a "job well done".
I know this goes against a typical client/lawyer agreement of actually earning damages for your client, but does the music industry really care as long as their pal the RIAA curbs piracy to the best of their ability? I think the music industry is content with worrying about making money with their business model, not through litigation.
I (out of strange curiosity) read your post through a few times, and could extract absolutely no coherent meaning, though it looks nice on the page. You should maybe spend more time over here.
specious at best.
Seriously, what about them?
Think local diner with CD jukebox system.
because this never went to court.
"'This sends a clear message that there are consequences if companies allow their resources to further copyright infringement,' said Matt Oppenheim, RIAA Senior Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs." (emphasis mine)
I think this is the first time I've <b>ever</b> heard the RIAA call it this rather than theft.
I'm not kidding here. There is a fundamental realization that people need to wrap their money-grubbing greedy egotistical heads around.
The fact is, if there is anything at all that can be broken down into 1's and 0's (digitally encoded) and then decoded back into its original form, it's qualified as Data.
And you know what? You just can't legislate against the transmission of Data. What do you think we built the entire Internet for? There are an infinite number of places for us to store it, and an infinite number of routes for us to transmit it over. You can't put shackles on it, Data must be Free!
I'm serious though. There is NO WAY for the RIAA, or anyone, to stop any form of data from being transmitted and shared. If this goes along long enough, it'll start getting encrypted. Who's gonna be the first to write the mp3 player with 32bit encryption?
What, Mr. RIAA lawyer? You say I've got an mp3 server? Well in order to determine that you must have illegally broken my server's personal encryption scheme which is against my fair use policy, so I'm just gonna have to sue your ass right back!
Unfortunately they're going to be around as long as people keep caving in and settling for a million bucks. Make no mistake about it, that's their ONLY goal is to keep that cash flow going. Why do you think they were so mightily pleased that the company settled? EASY MONEY.
I'm all for laws against how I use the Data I have. I don't rent out Texas Stadium and hold a Metallica concert charging people 20 bucks to hear my MP3's. That's money that should go to the band. But there's nothing wrong with me receiving that Data and storing it for personal use, or even exchanging it with others. The way they use it is up to them.
Bottom line, these laws and what the RIAA attempts to do are ultimately unenforceable. There will always be another server, another data stream. Keeping unenforceable laws on the books only undermines the credibility of the government and wastes a ton of taxpayer money. See "War on Drugs" for more info.
...don't buy their products. I haven't bought an RIAA-affected CD in 10 years. Most of the stuff I listen to is from musicians I've met personally, or from small labels who are glad for any exposure at all, and willfully give their stuff away.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
ASM Elections and Austin Evans
The choice for Letters & Science candidate
Beginning Monday morning, all UW-Madison students are now able to vote for their student leaders in ASM elections. As a Letters & Science undergraduate, you have the opportunity to elect representatives to represent around 19,000 students here on campus.
Austin Evans, a Letters & Science candidate, is a student with leadership, ability and experience. This past year, he has worked hard to protect student power, raise financial aid and represent the UW-Madison students on a national level. With your seven votes this week, you can help Austin carry-on his work into next year.
To vote, all you have to do is click and visit http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~ajevans/ and click on the voting link. You'll need your student ID# and PIN in order to vote. You can vote a total of seven times, but all seven of those can be for Austin Evans. Voting began Monday and lasts until Thursday night.
If you want more information about Austin's campaign, please visit http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~ajevans/. Thank you for your time, and don't forget to vote this week!
Austin Evans for ASM L&S
ASM's Present for ASM's future
I see. The threat of a long costly litigation, with a decent chance of losing and having to pay even more exorbiant court-ordered fines -- a threat backed up by the judicial power of the United States -- had absolutely nothing to do with IIS' decision to settle? Ah, the scales fell from their eyes; they saw the error of their ways; and they gratefully shelled out $1M as a voluntary penace along with the admonition to go and sin no more? All on their own, in a conversion experience that might as well have happened on the road to Damascus?
Just how is the weather on your planet, anyway?
If the courts were not enthusiastically subscribing to the RIAA's view of reality, then the RIAA would not have the giant bludgeon they currently wield. Coypright infringement is a matter of law; it is settled in the courts, ultimately; and any out-of-court settlement certainly derives from the potential mediation of the courts. The legal climate is the prime mover here, too, even if the formal process isn't followed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
What power or authority does the RIAA have that they can fine an individual or company? Being an industry association, what legal power does that give them? Suing in the courts is one thing, but fining and negotiating settlements is another.
Any ideas?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I left 9gig on a shared drive at my last temp. position... think they deleted it yet? Maybe I can get some cash out of them for not telling the RIAA on them. *eg* ;-)
From Merriam-Webster:
So by definition a trickle is small.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
An IIS server that can distribute thousands of files? What's their secret?
Just how did the RIAA find out about this? Is it another IIS vulnerability?
Yes it would be illegal if you and your spouse were listening to separate copies of the CD.
If the server software limited connections so any particular album could only be played by one client at a time, then IIS may have been able to escape liability. Of course they would have had to buy all those CD's too, I'll assume they did.
Think of the CD as a book, you can buy it and lend it out - thanks to those who fought the publishers earlier - but you can't lend out copies if more than one copy or any copy and the original will be used at the same time. If only one client were able to listen to any particular album at once, the company would have been in the clear. IANAL, but from my reading I believe this to be true.
There are some additional problems I've thought of that arise from this - what if I were to rip a book into chapters, and lend them out individually? Would that be legal? I wouldn't think so. Based on my reasoning above, what if I were to allow different people to listen to different tracks, with no more than one person listening to a track at the same time? This sounds just as legal as ripping a book into chapters and lending those out. But now think of multiple people listening to the same track, but different parts of the track. User #1 could say be "borrowing" offset 0:32 of a track but will have returned it by the time User #2 gets to it. This raises some problems, I haven't seen it discussed so far though. Technically, it seems ok as long as the same part of a song isn't sent to two users at once, it would appear that two people can listen to the same track at once. The server could simply wait a second to begin additional streams, in the unlikely event the same song is called for by separate clients at the same exact time. Can someone clarify on this?
That's the message the recording industry hoped to send on Tuesday by announcing it had collected $1 million
...
The infringing works included songs by such artists as the Police, Sarah McLachlan, A Perfect Circle, Ricky Martin, Aerosmith, Better than Ezra, and The Caifanes.
I am happy to hear that those musicians have received a million dollars.
Wait a minute... they didn't? I'm confused. Who got the money?
Find some judges, a few powerful corporate types, maybe a couple of senators, and check how many mp3's are stored somewhere in their system. I'm sure a few aides have some stashed away. Then report them to the music Nazi's in as public a manner as possible. and demand they sue them too.
Well, as far as ASCAP/BMI restrictions go, playing the music over a machine with attached speakers (boombox) is not a public performance requiring ASCAP or BMI fees. If the speakers are not attached to the amp, it's considered a PA system, thus a public performance is occurring... Thus, fees.
So in a situation where you use a PA amp, that could be argued to be a public performance... A boombox probably couldn't be.
What's sad is that this seems like a crazy standard for playing music in a workplace... Consider that playing CDs on a PC generally involves speakers that aren't attached to the machine. (My laptop excluded...)
Does that mean my company should be liable for an ASCAP/BMI fee for the "public performance" on my PC's "public address" speakers? That seems sort of silly...
Who did what now?
The RIAA can bite my ass. Most of the music that is being released these days is awful anyway. Maybe they should spend less time and money "protecting" their latest singer/rapper/actor/model/tv commercial star's lipsinc soundtrack, and start looking for real talent.
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
Forget the car ... what about the thousands of "Shoutcast" stations that are out there. ALL of those are being run from MP3 collections.
What gives?
I did a search, and it came up with a brief that looks like the article, but when I click on it, I just get the category menu! Anyone got a copy I could read?
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
Yes it would be illegal if you and your spouse were listening to separate copies of the CD.
Actually, spouses are treated differently from everyone else. Husband and wife have joint property, so it's legal to give a spouse a copy of a CD but not your best friend.
Since CmdrTaco is in favor of theft, I guess he won't mind if I steal his car... thanks, man!
There is a huge difference in my mind between
1) An employee putting an MP3 on employer owned equipment
2) An employee putting up a MP3 server without the employers knowledge
3) An employer sponsoring and condoning the spread of MP3 music throughout their corprate network
The first two are the employees problem, the third it is time to go after the employer.
I worked at a company where it was a firing offense to put up a shared MP3 repository... They had rather deep pockets and didn't want anyone to get their grubby hands on it
Could they post a working link please?
Careful, next thing you know the MPAA will be knocking on your door when you show a clip of the MATRIX where you think you can see Trinity's nipple.
When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro!
That sound you hear is the sound of MP3s being deleted from servers across the country. <clickety-click>
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
> Looks like they're taking a page from the BSA handbook.
Hey, I used to have that book... but all I remember are things about tying knots and starting
fires with sticks and stuff like that...
Oh wait. Nevermind.
April 9, 2002
The Business Software Alliance is facing a $500 million dollar lawsuit filed today on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America. The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution and copyright theft stemming from the software alliances use of the acronym "BSA".
"The Boy Scouts of America organization resents its good name being used in the context of quasi-police activities," said the scouts' lead attorney Dirk Diggler.
Spokespersons for the software alliance -- a collective of Information Technology corporations dedicated to rooting out software piracy -- admit they are outraged.
"We are simply testing out this name," said alliance Vice President Claire D. Romm. "Since we are in a totally different field, there is no trademark dilution."
Alliance leaders say they are most infuriated by a series of scout subpoenas seeking access to their internal company memos, emails and privileged notes regarding the suit.
"No organization should be allowed this kind of unfettered access to another groups proprietary records. Well, no organization except US."
...
And, in related news, Microsoft has filed a complaint in an Arizona court alleging that Tempe-based Integrated Information Systems (IIS) infringes on the Microsoft Internet Information Server (also IIS) trademark. According to Microsoft spokesperson Linda Jameson, IIS (the company)'s name would cause confusion among corporate customers since both it and Microsoft's server product offer similiar services. Calls made to the IIS (the company)'s offices were not returned.
Ok, just kidding. But damn.
we could all er.... ;) browse their collection and see what they were fined for....
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
Just have the Girl scouts or some other exempt group run your music servers.
In fact they should start a new napster like service with their immunity.
Well I hope not. The only thing that keeps me from going crazy is the fact that I can put on my headphones and drown out everything around me while I try to write code. If I'm going to be forced to buy and lug around an MP3 player... Oh well.
And then they'll ban those as well. Very Dilbertian.
..I can give the license plate numbers of those bloody 'doof doof doof' cars that drive past with the windows rolled down to the RIA? They are 'sharing' their music with people that don't own it!
Come to think of it, our neighbours play their movies real loud sometimes! Those damn terrorists are 'sharing' that movie with me against my will!
Maybe all this is a blessing in disguise for those of us that JWTGTSAT! (Just want to go to sleep at ten)
Is this any different? Would this company have still been sued if the local mp3 database had some sort of locking mechanism that only allowed songs to be played on one computer at a time? And regardless, how can they prove that more than one copy was played at a time, be it the original cd or the mp3 version or multiple instances of the mp3 version? Seems to me the RIAA had a weak case legally and the company for some reason figured it was better to just pay the bully and walk away without the bruises. Even with royalties paid for 'public performance' it should have been nowhere close to $1mil.
As long as this isn't a hoax, the word really needs to get out about this.
ok, outlawing something THIS popular, only makes things worse. We all know what happened during the prohibition era. Bootleggers, speak easy's, tons of stuff like that. It actually got BIGGER, increased the need for restriction/police, and overall made matters worse. Same thing is happening here. Taking away napster simply lead to smaller programs that do the same thing. MP3's are widespread, and whatever the fuck the RIAA does, there is nothing they can do to completely stop it.
Perhaps no other decade in history has contributed as much to the growth of the music industry as the 1990s, the digital decade. The new compact disc format is smaller, lighter, and more durable than vinyl and cassette. The sound quality does not diminish over time. CD players are inexpensive and accessible in cars, elsewhere, almost everywhere. Consumers are going digital; they're also going online.
No more do folks think that a sliding CD-ROM tray is a cup holder. Pop your CD into it and you hear music, which you can now convert into a file. Compression breakthroughs have made it easy to quickly download and distribute music files. This distribution can allow consumers to discover and follow new bands and to meet other fans with shared interests. This is great for the music industry: fans, artists, and record companies alike. The opportunities offered by the new technologies seem limitless. At the same time, in taking advantage of those opportunities, it is crucial that the artists who produce the music are not taken advantage of. That's not fair and it will hurt our creative future.
The RIAA's goals for the new millennium are to work with our industry and others to enable technologies that open up new opportunities but at the same time to protect the rights of artists and copyright owners.
Not Apple. Not Rio.
http://www.riaa.com/Music-Intro.cfm
They forgot, oh and do any of what we just said and you'll owe us a million or three.
Right.
Dear RIAA lawyers,
Next time try fucking around with a real company. You'll be laughed at if you ever go after an mp3 server in an engineering department at General Electric, or Chemistry lab at SmithKleinGlaxo. Real companies wouldn't give you the time of day, let alone answer your phone calls or sign for your registered letters. You're pathetic.
Cheers,
JB
You gotta be kidding me. Are they inferring that IIS is secure? Unless I am misunderstanding isn't IIS that which runs M$'s web server etc?
you're a jerk. I hate the way you mollest little children.
Asshole.
I'll start working at home. Or better yet, resign. You have to fight stupid laws by not upholding them, that's the point.
ssh corporate_mp3_server
/etc/init.d/nfs stop
/etc/init.d/smb stop
rm -rf
*whew*
"/super-secret-mp3-directory" has dissappeared off a certan debian mirror today....
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
You are nitpicking. Just because something in itself is small does not mean it can't exist an entity that is small compared to the other entities who by themselves are small, it just so happens that this one is small compared to the rest.
Thus "mighty small trickle" is correct since
a "mighty trickle" aren't really right in this context.
(I donät blaim those that have to read this 5 times to understand it.)
ObOnTopic:
In my opiion there must exist a way so that the copyright holders get paid for producing their copyrighted material. The digital revolution has made it so inexpensive to copy the material that the current established way to ensure payment now is breaking down. The recording industry is using the legal system to try and maintain the current payments structure since they see that it will otherwise undermine the record industry company bosses power base and revenue and they strive to maintain their power and profit.
I think this situation will continue to be problematic until a new way of paying the creative music people will emerge.
Just saying it like it are.
Anyone care to bet with me that this IIS company is a shill for the RIAA, that this whole thing is a publicity stunt, and that the $1M actually originated from the RIAA itself -- coming from IIS, where it arrived via "mysterious offshore accounts" using methods learned from RIAA's exalted mentor. . .
Now lets assume something different here. Lets say they got fined $20 per CD. This could be 50,000 CD's @ 60Meg a peice in size. So the total archive could be 2.9 Terabytes of Music. Double Wow, thats alot.
I wonder if it would have been cheaper for the company to just go out and purchase every CD in question?
/satterth
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
No, actually piracy is when you take over a ship on the high seas. What you are talking about is copyright infringement. I don't mean to be rude, but please don't do their work for them by helping them mangle the language like that.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Lets say you buy 100 CDs and make an "audio jukebox"-- a big networked box that will physically pull any requested CD out of the sleeve and play it, sending the sound to wherever you happen to be.
That's totally legal right? A business should be able to do that as well-- have a CD jukebox that plays the physical CD for any single user.
So what's the difference between that and an MP3 music database, provided you bought/own the CDs and could "lock" each CD (or track) so that it can only be listened to by one person at a time?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The list of conditions is pretty exhaustive, I half expect to see a fee schedule for "humming tune whilst walking down public street" or, "singing whilst engaged in aqueous hygene activities".
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Was the million a fine, and/or purchase of songs?
If one of _my_ songs was on the server, where is my $?
If I am not a 'signed' artist, is my mp3 being used to calculate fines/purchases?
Did this make a difference?(* obviously a chilling effect on businesses having mp3 servers, but on individuals?) Won't the employees crank up the 'underground' sharing of music(burning cds at home, trading with coworkers) since the RIAA weasled this deal?
Hopefully, no employee ever buys a RIAA published CD again. Hopefully you don't either.
Why don't we just bomb a bunch of buildings owned by the RIAA or MPAA or whoever we're whining about in this thread.
Surprised by Unicide! (fuck this shit)
I download, store and share copyrighted material not so much as a money saving measure, but more because I have a real ethical aversion to seeing some of my money going to into the American Tax budget, (yes most of these copyright holders are American firms), which then gets passed on to Israel, to help the apartheid regime there and the murder of Palestinians.
Its not so much a deliberate boycott, but it does turn out that I don't really need to spend money on anything America produces, its music and television shows included.
There are nice, easy, sanctioned ways to steal.
But the Mafia still know how to deal with this kind of extortion - cut off their balls and shoot them in the back of the head.
The reason that public performance is restricted with regard to copyright materials is because it is a way of leveraging royalties. "You can only perform this in public if you pay us a squigillion dollars!"
What the copyright holders seem to forget though, is that public performance is free advertising.
That's why record labels bribe radio stations for airplay.
That's also why I release my own music using the Open Audio License, since I want as many people to hear it.
If someone came to me and told me about this great new band they'd heard, but under copyright law they couldn't let me hear the band, but would have to buy my own copy I would be unlikely to buy their album, and would probably never hear them. I'd be a lot more likely to buy the album if I heard it first.
It's the music with the most hype, and the most public performance that sells. Why won't these idiots let that through their thick skulls?
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
Whichever is the real story, the RIAA has just handed the fair-use activists the small businesses of America as allies.
Credits to David of Noisebox for pointing out the IISX finance picture.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Unfortunately, if you successfully boycott them they will just use their lower sales figures as "evidence" of "piracy", and get even more draconian laws -- and higher blank-media taxes.
You mean that the RIAA is using unethical practices to squeeze cash out of their customers because it's easier to sue your customers for a dollar today than it is to wait ten years for them to pay you five dollars?
I'd have more sympathy a few years ago. Today, it's clear that any artist of even remote merit should have no truck with the RIAA or the legal imbroglio they embody. Anyone with any integrity at all is playing the MP3 game, not the "forcing anal sex upon the consumer will make them buy more music" game.
I'm a huge fan of capitalism, but this is a clear case of short term profits at the expense of long term customer relationships. Er, in laymans terms, that's "cooking the goose that lays the golden egg."
Of course, these days, it's all about the goose meat. They have no respect for their customer, and it's only a matter of time before their customer has no respect for them.
Cheers
-b
I work for a daily financial paper and a hell of a lot of software is unlicensed. Now they subcontract to another firm for software licensing to keep them out of trouble (i.e we pay you to ensure our licensing fees are correct). Strangely the BSA know about this and we simply have an 'arrangement' with them that we are working on it.no fines , fees nothin'
perl -MIO::Socket -e 'IO::Socket::INET-new(PeerAddr="some.windoze.box:1
It seems to me that what IIS did was the equivalent, at least as far as public performance is concerned, of setting up a semi-private jukebox. What are the laws regarding jukeboxes? Do they have to be set up by the record companies, or do the owners of establishments that have them set them up themselves, and pay the copyright holders accordingly? Who gets your quarter when you pick your songs?
Would anyone more educated than I on this matter like to comment?
that would be considered an illegal rave (more than two people listening to repetitive music) so you could get done under the criminal justice act :-)
tried so hard (and succeeded) to have a profoundly deaf baby! - they were anticipating the hearing tax! Clever women!
What if the neighbors turn up their stereo so loud that the whole appartment block can hear it? Can tenants who want some sleep now get revenge by sicking the RIAA on to the disturbers ;-)
Say no to software patents.
I bet the RIAA handed them 1M and said, "hey, we're going to bust you, then you publically give us the 1M. in return, we will publically show how grateful we are by using your digital rights management product."
Please people, this isn't a story. This is a publicity stunt. 1 million is chump change, anyway.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
This ones REAL easy if you look between the lines. They had a 'sanctioned' MP3 server. Do you think their software is legit? Hell no. Pay the fine, keep quiet.
I've too often worked for companies where piracy was rampant. When trying to license the last company I worked for I was told this "We've rolled the dice this long, we're willing to go awhile longer." Man, that's people's jobs we're talking about, 100 of them that would be lost if that company got busted. It's all about money.
So we all know about companies that we have worked for that have MP3 repositories. I know I can list several off the top of my head and guess at several more. What would happen if we narced on everyone that we knew of? Would the government allow the RIAA to swell into a giant or would it step in?
It would be amusing to me to watch the RIAA destroy business after business, because then no one would have jobs to buy CDs with, so piracy would just further escalate.
The parent post makes a very good point. And how hard would it be, once the RIAA threatened action, to simply make the server "disappear?" In Court: "What? We didn't have a server. Prove that there's a server."
This whole "story" smells to high heaven. I bet this is just a publicity stunt by the RIAA.
NOBODY just gives some organization 1 million bucks, no matter how threatened they are.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Looks like they're taking a page from the BSA handbook
What, is the RIAA banning gay members now?
Welcome to the world, mate. Every large corporation has mafia at the head. GE, Walmart.. Hell, Jack Valenti (head of RIAA) sounds pretty fucking italian.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
There's no way to do that. There's no direct connection between the server and the listener's speakers (or ears). The files have to go over the network, and through the listener's computer and audio card and such in order to be heard. If the listener's computer can play the music, then it can also make a copy.
I keep hearing about pirate music? When's the last time you heard a pirate song anyway? I hear a lot of rock, jazz, and even some disco, but hardly any pirate music.
And why shouldn't pirates have music too? Don't they have it tough enough already with their vision problems, wooden legs and hooks for hands? Now they can't sing about storms, and fish and rum?
I'm sorry, i just can't imagine a bunch of smelly old sea bandits sitting around singing Britney Spears songs.
...I don't live in the US =)
We seize the server and hold the world randsom for ... *camera zoon, little finger in mouth* 1 MILLION DOLLARS... muhahahahaha muhahahahaha muhahahahaha
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
The best we can do is figure out how to share songs at work legally, and I do believe it's possible by following one of the radio station server models. Remember there are individualized radio station servers on the internet, and as far as I know, no one has sued them.
So no doubt you can make a server legal by following the same rules that radio and shoutcast stations have to follow, possibly with the extentions that some of the pick-your-playlist internet stations use.
1. You can't choose to listen to individual songs - at least you can't choose WHEN to listen to a song.
2. It's all-right to have some sort of effect on the playlist. Picking a genre is what you do by choosing a radio station after all. There are individualized internet stations that let you go a series of steps:
A) you choose and rate a number of genres
B) you can take individual performers out of your playlist.
C) you can stop and rate a song that's playing so that you won't hear it again or so that you'll hear it more often.
They seem to be skirting the law by having you exclude what you don't like instead of letting you include what you do like.
You could set up an individualized radio station server that allows you to have a number of identities, then edit your identities so that each one represents a playlist you like.
Interestingly, shared stations don't seem to have the "you can't pick when to play a song" restriction. A number of internet stations have automated request lines. You pick what song you want to hear next and are placed in a queue, so that everyone hears your choice next. So another way to deal with this is to set up a shared company station.
My cynicism makes me think that what protects the individualized internet stations is the fact that they link to sellers of whatever cd they are playing. It's all about money. If you included a link to an amazon page with every song you played, they'd be more likely to leave you alone.
Rocky J Squirrel
Since it's illegal to give a public performance of a CD, DVD, video or Record, and even the people of the RIAA may possibly have been invited to parties in their youth (bit of a stretch with them, I know), it would be true to say they they have all commited offences against the companies they're representing!
I really think this point would go down well in any court cases - just asking any member of the RIAA present if they'd ever been to a party, ever watched a video round a friend's house or borrowed a CD in the past. I doubt any of them could claim to have not "committed an offence" in this way, without purgering(sp?) themselves...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Dr Evil in Austin Powers should have just set up shop with RIAA. It would have saved him a lot less bother...
Human logic: 1) I can't so you mustn't. 2) I can but you mustn't.
dork
I never said legal precedent... but they can go to other corps where someone dimes out the company and say "XYZ corp did the same thing, and they were willing to settle for $1 million. Either pay us 1.2 mils or we 'own3rZ j00 in da c0ur7z.'"
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
If the company did not have original copies of all of these CDs then this is not exactly a unjust move, but the collection would have to be pretty big at 20 dollars a CD (conservative) they would have to of had 50,000 CDs or approximately 2.4 TB of MP3s. I don't know many companies with that many MP3s so this seems truly high.
What happens if a company buys the CDs, locks them up and installs software that only allows a song to be played by one person at a time, with just a few CDs and some good scheduling at the client and server end you wouldn't even notice, cause the songs would just get shuffled every once in a blue moon as the probability of listening to the same song would be so low. It wouldn't be a public performance, the company would have the right to use the music and they wouldn't be pirating it just allowing people to listen to it over the network. I'd like to see a commercial solution like this - It would cost allow for all the CDs but I bet the music boys would still have a huge fit - " wait a minute you can't buy a CD and share it with other people using a computer even if only one person does listen to it at once because probablility says that that wont happen so effectively you're letting anyone listen to the same song which is unfair use - or sum other steaming load like that"
Hmmmm, wonder what would happen if your employer started working on moving to all OOS/FS and they found out?
prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
What the RIAA have proven here is that they can use existing laws and processes to stop piracy.
Piracy is currently illegal. Everyone knows it. IIS knows it so well that they agreed to settle out of court.
Senator Hollingsworth, take note: there is no need for your new bill to stop piracy. The existing law works!
Is there a legal way for a company to do this?
1) Make sure only one person is listening to a CD at a time.
2) Make sure 1 Copy of each CD is on site at a time.
3) Ensure the employees can only listen. No CD writers.. Cant Email MP3's etc..
Or, What if the company pays Public performace fees like nightclubs, bars, or even grocery stores? Those fees are high, but no where near a million dollars, and may be a reasonable fee for some companies.
-Jason
This is my fear. I have a little jukebox on my desk. It stores virtually all my CD's (~9GB MP3s). I keep track of who can access them, but still, I could see it going away once the sysAdmin hears about this RIAA settlement.
I'd like to see these guys, disappear, sue them all ya want, we contract them in at the company I work for actually....
They are sum, of the worst kind, they provide no added value of any kind. They over charge for their services, and the area manager for the guys that are contacted in at this company has his tougue so far up my bosses ass that he gets the food undigested. Posting Anon, for good reason
Bit off topic but related and inllustrates the extent to which these powerful organizations are reaching.
I have heard word that BMI has launched a campaign to extract a fee from small businesses that have a CD player or television. One small sandwich shop owner told me that BMI has been harassing them each day over the phone and threating litigation if they don't pay them $300. Because they have a TV and have played music CD's over the stereo while customers were in the small shop.
Now the sandwhich shop has tunred off the TV and only plays CD's that contain public domain songs or orginal music from local artists who are not registered with BM. The funny thing is it really won't effect their bottom line at all. But BMI has effectivly denied the owners of this shop rights to listen to certain music while they are at work.
They have refused to pay this "extortion" and have removed any CD that has BMI or ASCAP on any songs on the disk.
I found this shocking. That these royalty hounds are getting so aggressive to the point of strong arming mom and pop operations.
I could see if they were a dance club or had DJ's and the vast majority of profit comes from people enjoying music from national artists. But this is not the case. They make money on sandwiches and some beers on friday night.
I find it ironic. I remember many people saying that the RIAA SHOULD be going after the people who are pirating music instead of turning all consumers into criminals via the SSSCA/CBDTPA.
I say that IIS did something wrong and they are paying for it. End of story. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend: The RIAA using existing laws to bust pirates instead of legislating all electronic devices to be brain-dead.
When they say they have a dedicated server for sharing files does that mean they merely have a file server or are they running something like gnutella that is distributing the files? If the employees were playing the files from a central file server and not copying the files to their PC I would think it would lessen the RIAAs case.
Were the files downloaded from the Internet or were they ripped from CDs by the employees? If the company was able to reproduce the actual CDs would they still be held liable? I wouldn't think so.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
What if we all wrote the RIAA and requested to pay for permission to use a very small, say 10 second, piece of a song in a single performance for a single individual. Like something used in a power point presentation for a single supervisor? What could that cost? Ten seconds of music for a single listener? What would they do if a couple of million people requested such permission. And we all did it tomorrow? Course, their initial payment scheme might not be acceptable, so we might all want to negotiate, individually, through several versions of agreement. That might keep their lawyers busy for a while.
Do you people honestly think that the RIAA gives a flying fuck about what you people think ?
Do you really think that the industry association charged with the task of defending the interests of the very people you all depend on day and and day out for your entertainment will listen to your pitiful whinings ?
They dont have to listen to you because you`re already taken care of.
Imagine a crack dealer with a monopoly on a city. Addicts start whining about the price of crack. Does the dealer panic and start lowering prices, increasing the amount of quality crack, setting up crack co-operatives to help the addicts get their crack in the most convenient way possible ?
No.
You know why ? Because the addicts have nowhere else to go. Now, imagine the RIAA & MPAA as the dealer, and your sorry asses as the crack addicts.
You can whinge, whine, complain, threaten, stomp your feet and pout all you like but it wont make any difference. When you`re through with it all, they`ll still be there in control of the crack, fixing the prices to whatever level they like and cutting it with rat poison (ie. Britney Spears, Nsync, et al).
And you`ll do what ? Go home and watch TV.
You depend on them for your entertainment, you destroy these enemies and you destroy a part of yourself.
So, what are you going to do about it ? Thats right. You`re going to write letters to your Congress-being.
You might as well be writing letters to the corrupt police officials the crack dealer has bought off in the hypothetical city.
One day Western society will waken up and see how utterly pathetic it has become.
Its time to throw something far more than words at the people who are responsible for corrupting entire generations with their greed.
Feel free to mod this as troll/flamebait/whatever just because you dont happen to agree with it.
And then we'll record it, and give copies away for free over the Internet.
From the article:
The infringing works included songs by such artists as the Police, Sarah McLachlan, A Perfect Circle, Ricky Martin, Aerosmith, Better than Ezra, and The Caifanes.
The company should have been fined $10 million for listening to such suck-ass bands.
From the article:
IIS is an Arizona-based company offering various technology and business consulting services. One of the products offered by IIS, ironically, included software that provided secure distribution of copyrighted digital material.
The RIAA just happens to sue one of its suppliers? And they pony up $1 million? I think you are right about it being a publicity stunt.
You all hate the RIAA so much you fail to see that this is theft. If my company has a huge MP3 library why would I ever need to buy a legitimate CD when I can just take the MP3's home or burn them to a CD so I can play them in the car? Doesn't the artist have something to lose here? What if every company did this? Or what if every boradband user published gigabytes of music? The recording industry would suffer. The whole music industry would suffer. Who would be able to finance new bands and promote touring bands? Corporate advertisers maybe? Maybe the next REM tour will have 3 minute Budweiser commercials between songs. That would be fucking cool wouldn't it?
Yeah, the RIAA does some dumb shit with the heavier fees on webcasters, their latest lobbying efforts, and their notion that all listeners are pirates. But after reading this topic, it kind of looks like everyone is a pirate. Fair use is one thing, but with the attitudes expressed here in this public forum fair use will be killed because the RIAA doesn't have to go very far to show lawmakers that there are alot of thieves who will abuse fair use. Thanks guys.
'Same speed C but faster'
Is this serving the public good? It seems to me that many copyrights, just like many patents, don't serve the public good at all.
"God helps those who take a big helping for themselves." Firesign Theatre said that in the mid-70s, but it is even more true today. It is the wild west, and the RIAA, and similar outfits are the evil land barons, trying to use "proof by assertion", "I saw it first!", "might makes right", and "Ha ha, I've got deeper pockets than you" to grab the rights to as much of the new intellectual property frontier as they can.
Q3 is the question concerning the length of copyright in the slashdot interview.
Gnutella is a protocol, not a company
Likewise, RIAA is a lobbying organization, not a label. Slashdot comments often use the terms "RIAA", "MPAA", and "Gnutella" metonymically for "Big Five labels", "Big Seven studios", and "the developers of BearShare and LimeWire" respectively.
Will I retire or break 10K?
From the RIAA's press release:
Everything about this sounds fishy:
There's something else going on here. I think dattaway was right; this was either a set-up or a win-win opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised to see IIS's DRM software magically appear in some new RIAA-sponsored copy-protection scheme. The $1M will never change hands.
I'd sure love to hear someone from IIS post to this forum...
I wouldn't have any problem with teachers teaching about condoms if they also taught about the condom failure rate for which many reports are available. To drive the point home, perhaps the teachers could also have the students play a game. They could spin a wheel each day of class. If the wheel landed on the safe zone, they would get a free piece of candy. If it landed on the danger zone they would have to pay for all the candy they had eaten. At the 100 to 1 odds cited in the linked study, I wonder how many students would play the game.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
is it infringement when a dj, at a club with a cover-charge, publicly plays copyrighted material for a couple hundred people dancing?
No, because the DJ has already paid ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI to license the public performance right in the underlying musical work. There is no public performance monopoly in sound recordings except over a digital network. (The rationale for such a monopoly is that digital networks make possible re-broadcasting the stream without loss, depriving the label of even the revenue from a $6 single.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I don't really do much downloading anymore as I've found most of what I like, but I do enjoy contributing my 10,000 mp3 files to the rest of the internet community. It feels good to know I'm giving people an opportunity to preview music for their purchases, and/or to own a copy of some songs which they would never purchase anyway but might want to play once or twice on demand in the future. I believe that most people will do what is right.
Thanks for the reminder, RIAA. I haven't been on gnutella for a week or two, and this little incident just may have given me the energy to put my gnutella servent in my startup process so I don't forget again.
The files have to go over the network, and through the listener's computer and audio card and such in order to be heard. If the listener's computer can play the music, then it can also make a copy.
Unless the audio is strongly encrypted (128+ bits) over the network and the playback application uses a Secure Audio Path. If an app does not shut off all digital outputs when the Secure Audio Path is turned on, Microsoft will not sign it.
However, nothing can stop line out line in. Even Hollings's current proposal prohibits the copyright industry from requiring technologies that would make fair use next to impossible.
Will I retire or break 10K?
we hand over our cajones to the RIAA and its ilk
Why would they want our large boxes?
I think you meant "cojones". The word "caja" means "box" and adding the "ón" ending indicates "large", so "cajón" means "large box", and "cajones" is the plural, "large boxes".
The word "cojón" means "testicle", so "cojones" is "testicles", which, I suspect, is what you really meant.
Correct spelling is often important, but when you're using words from another language it can be really important.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There is a reason the WHOLE WORLD hates JEWS.
These bozos are involving my government's resources more and more on an almost daily basis. Is there a point in which the leaders of America say enough is enough, we have better things to be talking about.. No of course not, since the RIAA and organizations like them have plenty of money to get our corrupt leaders' attention. Oh wait, no that's not corruption, that's capitalism... My bad... The point being, they have the money to fuel the witch-hunt, where is it going to end? In the near future, when you get pulled over for an expired tag or for speeding, are the police going to be making sure you don't have unlicensed/burned media in your cd player? If so are tey going to issue a ticket for it, or simply take you to jail? Are the top '3r33t h4x0rs' of the cia/fbi going to be doing broad sweeps of the internet to find all us malicious sorts out there using p2p networks to share information? The national guard going to be denying aid to victims of disasters because they had a collection of illegally taped movies? Laugh all you want, but if these fooks go unchecked this very type of thing could be a reality... Perhaps I am not one to be making a judgement call.. The way I see it, I pay for all the parts of my machines and the access to the yes/no bit thingies, and if it is stored on my media, it is mine...If they really wanted to make it where I couldn't get the stuff, they'd never have made it possible in the first place. Information should be free...ALL information should be free... Then when you roll accross the GOOD (or good for you..?) information (software, songs, whatever) shell out the clams for it... That's what I do... Everything should be trialware... Nothing is worse then buying a cd/game that sucks...Cause then it's 'yours'..
Rosen, sure sounds like a bloodsucking name, doesn't it?
Yes it would be illegal if you and your spouse were listening to separate copies of the CD. Is is a problem of having multiple copies or multiple listenings? What if some CD-player company came up with a CD-player that would allow multiple tracks for the album to be played on multiple outputs? So Track1 plays in the dining room while track2 plays in the home office? It's the same physical CD, so no copy protection laws borken there. But it is 2 different people listening to it, but listening to different songs.
So...
How much of this one million dollars will actually go to the artists whose works were infringed?
How much of it will go to line the pockets of the label executives and their money-grubbing lawyers?
If 98% (or more) would go to the artists, then I'd say "what's the gripe?". But, sadly, I suspect this is not the case.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Whenever I buy a CD, the first thing I do is rip it to .ogg. I store these files on my harddisk so I can listen to my entire music collection and make custom playlists while at my computer.
When a friend of mine visits, I'll let him log on to my machine. He can now listen to my .oggs.
Surely in the eyes of the RIAA I'm now guilty of copyright infringement?
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I know a couple of bars in town that have juke boxes. Want to bust them too? Wow, you could make a lot of money. Those things have been around since the 50's! All those people listening to one purchased album! It's enough to make you want to rip out your ears in disgust.
today is spelling optional day.
If I play a CD I purchased at home with some friends over, does that constitute a 'public performance'?
IANAL and this is from a UK perspective:
The test for it to be a public performance is that the general public must have access.
So in a physical form, the general public would have to have access to the area the music was being played.
Hence in a shop it is a public performance as the public have access to the shop, but in your home it is not as the public do not have access, only people you invite in.
This is also why you and your friends can watch a video, but a club can't without paying extra fees.
True story - a friend was running a CyberCafe and wanted to be able to stream music to each workstation, so the customers could just select some music on headphones that they liked, rather than playing something on the HiFi. To do this he tried to get a licence to do it properly - but gave up as the licensing authorities in the UK couldn't classify what sort of license he needed! This was about 4 years ago.
But aren't you missing the point??
:)
Your argument is sound, and presumably arguable, up to your last step.
Whilst only one copy of your CD, be that the physical CD, a copy on your workstation, or a remote streaming server, is playing you are on safe ground - even if it was techincally infringing they would have a hard time prosecuting as they are all equivalent to just listening to the CD - which was not infringing last time I looked!
As soon as you have 2 copies playing you are in trouble as you have 'duplicated' the CD. This may be you listening on your worksation, whilst your daughter listens to the CD at home, or sharing your MP3's to 3 collegues. This is in no way equivalent to just playing one CD.
If you wanted to do this complying with the spirit of the law if not the letter you would need to have a streaming server that would only play back the tracks on _that_ cd to one person at a time.
This is the same problem MP3.com had when it tried to provide a service where you could upload personal MP3's so you could access them anywhere over the net - thier mistake was to do a good technical implementation whereby server space was preserved by only storing the MP3's once. So when I uploaded "N'Sync Greatest Hits"[1] and was the 453rd person to do so it wouldn't create any extra files, only allow me access to already stored ones. This allowed RIAA et al to succesfully argue that many people were listening to the same CD. If every user had a private area a more spirited defence could have been put up, even if the server storage space went through the roof!
[1] I'm kidding okay - any half decent service would refuse the upload
I hate the RIAA!
Fuck the RIAA. Give money to the EFF.
-cbare
Your argument is sound, and presumably arguable, up to your last step.
I agree that there are probably issues with my approach with the current law, however, compare this to software duplication; Microsoft even. MS acknowledges that for a system administrator it's tedious to man-handle thousands of OS/Office CDs, and thus only a master set is utilized and per-installation serial numbers are used.
Laws have to change with the times, and I refuse to sit still when the status quo is being argued.
At the very least, a form of secondary use licensing should be available, which is the right to use the digital media in other form, potentially originally derived from a CD, the web, etc. This would be adequate to allow an online site like mp3.com to consolidate binary images.
Even still, the argument that multiple digital images "might" allow simultaneous reuse (and thereby actualize duplication) doesn't mean it realistically will (e.g. single people that live alone like myself). That you currently can put an mp3 image on a portable player alone demonstrates the flaws in this logic. (Not that there wasn't all sorts of fear when this concept was first started).
-Michael
-Michael
Is it just me or does the RIAA seem like they are operating in panic mode desparately trying to squeeze out every last penny like an alcoholic shaking a bottle of Mad Dog trying to get that last stubborn drop?
Um, careful calling the kettle black. Both are used, but he used it right. Try Merriam-Webster's dictionary and look up "beck" (related to "beckon") before you lambaste someone for an error. You'll see the phrase "beck and call" under the third definition.
My hunch says the artists won't see a PENNY of that million dollars.
Time to see the writing on the wall. Your industry is disappearing. Consumers no longer see value in the product you are selling, and these legal attacks are only delaying the inevitable.
If you are a musician, or promoter I suggest you return to the roots of music...and that is live performances. Like many, I'll admit I pirate music over the Internet. I do it because the CD is just not worth the $14.00's to me. Hell, the music is barely worth my time to pirate it.
But at the same time, I've HAPPILY paid $100.00 (times two) for tickets to see Billy Joel and Elton John in concert.
Obviously consumers still see live performances as a value.
So all you up and coming "bands" out there, know this--in the future, the only performers making a living will be those that tour, and those that put on a great show.
You have been warned.
SOMEWHERE IN A DUNGEON FAR BELOW RIAA HEADQUARTERS (AP)-- The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) today announced it is introducing a bill tin Congress making it illegal for artists who are not members of RIAA or associated with RIAA member-labels to record songs for public listening.
The RIAA believes that such independent recording "unfairly and unnecessarily deprives" their lawyers, executives, and artists from future revenues. In an unrecorded telephone interview, Hilary B. Rosen, President and CEO of RIAA, said that "we believe our industry has a right to expect that our ideas for new compositions will not be stolen or usurped by some fool kid getting the idea first. Remember, Elisha Gray, an established expert in electronic media, was unfairly deprived of profits from the invention of the telephone simply because Alexander Graham Bell, an amateur, got to the patent office a few minutes sooner. It's foolish to think that someone without experience or affiliation with the recording industry could come up with a creatively written song and have the right to profit from it when it sells in the millions. It's unfair to RIAA members to expect them to sit back and idly watch the money fly past into the pockets of independent artists."
When asked about the possibility of independent artists distributing their works through free channels such as KaZaa and independent websites, Rosen commented, "we have undercover agents who may be paying them a *cough* visit."
Asked about future legislation that the RIAA may introduce, Rosen added, "we understand that some churches and other houses of worship sanction musical performances without demanding royalties. Accordingly, we are investigating this to make sure RIAA's rights and potential profits are not infringed in any way."
EDITOR'S NOTE: The above interview was not recorded because the RIAA demandes that royalties be paid for all recorded telephone conversations, especially if they are encoded in mp3 format and distributed via the Internet.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Please go do some reading.
Ditto. You're not an oddball.
Error:
Okay, I know this is slashdot so everyone wants everything both ways, but isn't this what people were asking for?
There was reference in an earlier article that said how when Bill Gates first starting selling software that there was a lot of piracy and how legal process was used to enforce copyright rather than technical means. Ie, let the law sort out the criminals instead of having all the devices treat us like ones. Now music is making the same inroads, and except for the whackjobs that think they should never pay for music (or heat, or rent or anything else I'm sure as those things don't cause unknown musicians to die either), the rest of us like to have our purchased music available for playing on several devices in several locations.
I think it's great that they proved that they can protect their copyrights through legal process (although the settlement seems a little excessive, setting an example perhaps), but it's one step backwards in being able to convince governments that technological methods are required instead.
The interesting thing is, it wasn't even a corporate-sanctioned server. Some developers set one up to swap mp3's, and apparently someone squealed to RIAA. IIS has to pay $1M for their mistake.
Actually, RIAA was going for more money. Much more. But they shaved it down to $1M in exchange for allowing IIS to be used as a "deterrent example."
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
the riaa has their heads up their collective asses if they think they will stop us from downloading music ,pandoras box is open and there' s nothing they can do to stop us what they gonna do arrest us all ,give me a freakin break.amazing how thye go after music being down loaded from the internet but if u own a phillips cd recorder or a dual tape deck theres no problem,there is no difference between downloading a song and putting a tape in a tape deck and pressing record ,the only difference is the media being used.RIAA KISS MY ASS
and no i'm not a coward i don't wanna take the freakin time to register heres my email
tuckerryan@hotmail.com
sincerely ryan p tucker
I have never heard of IIS, nor any of their business solutions, etc. (No surprise there, really). But I will say one thing. That one million dollars sure as hell is going to give their website a ton of hits. That money might be the best marketing cost that the company will ever spend.
Now to see if RIAA puts a link to them on their website....
And they said zombies weren't real!