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.
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.
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)
I know I sound like a broken record with this, but there isn't a market solution (i.e., boycott) for this. With cops and courts at the RIAA's beck and call, there's not much of a technological solution, either. There has to be a political solution.
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.
So what you're saying is that it's illegal for you and your spouse (or other live-in companion) to listen to the same CD? You both have to own a copy? Or that you can't lend a CD out to a friend and let them listen to it? Or plop it on a tape to have an alternate storage location? Or even lend that tape out to a friend?
A lot of these activities which are now claimed to be illegal are permitted under the Home Audio Recording Act.
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.
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.
So, if I play my CD's at a party I throw at my house, does the RIAA expect me to compensate for that? How about if a friend is in my car, and we listen to my CD's, is that a public performance? How about if 8 friends are in my Suburban?
Or maybe I go out to the pool with my boombox and throw on a CD. Do the other pool-goers constitute the public? Do I now need to wear headphones to avoid licensing fees?
When I invite a friend over to watch a movie, do I have to buy a copy of the movie for each visitor? Do I need to obtain permission from the MPAA before watching a movie with friends? How about with my cats? They like to watch tv as well, you know.
Sure, you could argue that all these are indeed a public performance. Of course, my argument would be that were the RIAA/MPAA/etc. to try and enforce any of them, they would be (a)laughed out of court, and (b)bankrupt and pennyless in a matter of weeks. Why should this case be that different?
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
I believe you are wrong on your analysis. IANAL. There was a ruling within the last couple of years saying that the employer is responsible for all things on the network.
For example, if an employee were to forward around a racist joke. [Let's just say for this scenario it's about Green People]. A employee that is offended by the joke doesn't sue the people that is forwarding it, but rather the employer for creating a "unsafe" [I know that's not the right term..but there's another legal term] condition in the workplace. [Check Here for Other Related Situations]
Scenario 2: If an employee installs a piece of software that the employer doesn't own the license to, the person that is responsible is the employer even if he is not aware of it. [Read More Here]
Scenario 3: If a hacker sets up a warez site on one of your server, you are not technically liable, but the FBI can come in with an warrant and confiscate the server without giving you an opportunity backup all the data that you need from that server. [Operation Bandwidth]
Basically my point is this, the employer is ultimately responsible for all employees and equipment onsite. 1) If they are taking IP claims to all the work that you do on the office computers, they should also be liable for all the bad things that you do. 2) Ultimately, the employer owns all the equipment and must be actively enforcing the rules.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."