Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internal MP3 Server? 1 Million Dollars Please

Posted by chrisd on from the these-are-not-the-oggs-you're-looking-for dept.

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.

236 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. More, more, more! by browser_war_pow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more they do this the more enemies they will get and the less sympathy they will get from the public!!

    1. Re:More, more, more! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You forgot the OSPS. The "Oh! Shiny! Pretty! Syndrome." It's our culture that they own, and in the long run, in general terms, we aren't going to do without it. As far as I am concerned, there are two possible outcomes: 1) a far-reaching change in the legal status of intellectual property recognizes that "music" is going to be a verb and not a noun, a service and not a good, that people will have to make sure that they're going to get paid ahead of time, or 2) we hand over our cajones to the RIAA and its ilk, we allow more invasive, more draconian, and more wide-ranging legislation and enforcement creep into our day-to-day life, restricting things that our technology and our instinct to share with each other make natural, and the RIAA and their pals get richer.

      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.

    2. Re:More, more, more! by technizmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, this is a textbook example of 'trickle-down' enforcement. Shut down the companies basing their business on swapping, then, shut down companies permitting swapping. When the time comes to prosecute individual people, any incumbent mindset or mechanism for owners' (not consumers) rights will have already been broken down, leaving little momentum or resolve to combat the proceedings.

      More than likely, the RIAA et al. are hoping that prosecution of individual people will become unnecessary, save for a couple good example-setters.

    3. Re:More, more, more! by invenustus · · Score: 2
      I know I sound like a broken record with this, but there isn't a market solution (i.e., boycott) for this.... There has to be a political solution.
      Well, even the most diehard libertarian would agree with you there. The problem isn't anything the RIAA is doing per se, it's what the government is doing on their behalf. There has to be a political solution because it's a political problem.
      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    4. Re:More, more, more! by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There has to be a political solution.

      Poltics is the art of compromise. Do you think it's a lost art? It's the art that's in the Constitution with regards to IP, and it's an art that can be redisovered. Maybe teachers are too busy teaching kids how to put on condoms to rediscover the Constitution. Why do you believe the outcome is going to be one-sided? Why do the RIAA or the AIP movement have to "win". If either side wins, everybody loses. It's just a different kind of loss.

      I'm not so sure if we need a political solution anyway. If the RIAA really needs money to do things, and if they really can't stop people from stealing their music, then they will eventually run out of money and logicly, no longer be able to do things. If, in the mean time, they start punishing people who haven't done anything wrong, this will only accelerate the process. Why? Because I know that I, if punished for having done no crime, will be converted to the pirate camp. I suspect others will jump ship too, thus accelerating the process. If I have to deal with clunky built-in copy protection that makes it hard to work, that might easily be enough to push me over the line. It just depends on how much they are punishing me for having DONE NOTHING WRONG. It's only fair--if I have to do the time, I might as well do the crime.

      OTOH, if someone can come up with a successful business model that's an alternative to what the RIAA offers, that will work too. Or, maybe the RIAA will actually do some kind of customer survey and discover that they really are losing customers because they are being dicks. That would tend to create non-extreme reform also.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:More, more, more! by G-funk · · Score: 2

      No, it won't. Because the general public doesn't know the RIAA exists. Let's face it, 90% of the people who aren't artists don't know they exist, and if they do they probably hate them already. But Joe Sixpack thinks he's buying a cd from bestbuy, or from britany, or at most he thinks he's buying it from sony, he doesn't know that he's really buying it from the evil-megacorporation-of-doom(tm) and that if they're feeling good britany will get a little of the money.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    6. Re:More, more, more! by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or do what I did- stop buying music. And no, I don't download music, either. When in the mood I just listen to my collection of CDs all bought pre 1994.

      I know I'm the oddball here by actually boycotting something, but we all do our little bit.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    7. Re:More, more, more! by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Funny


      The more they do this the more enemies they will get and the less sympathy they will get from the public!!

      Also known as:

      The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

      ~z

      --
      sig?
    8. Re:More, more, more! by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      You know, it's funny that you make the comment about it being "our culture that they own". I instantly thought of the injustices done to the copyright act, mostly the almost endless extensions given to copyright merely to appease those in power. (Remembering that originally copyright didn't even last as long as the authors lifetime, wasn't it like 17 years?) If copyright really only lasted the same amount of time as when it was enacted, I'd probably be more sympathetic towards the RIAA's plight (though, it would honestly be more convincing if it actually represented artists, and not the labels).

      I just thought it was interesting, the "owned culture" you mentioned, when the original copyright act didn't convey ownership of our culture to anyone, except for short fixed periods.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    9. Re:More, more, more! by kubrick · · Score: 2

      or at most he thinks he's buying it from sony, he doesn't know that he's really buying it from the evil-megacorporation-of-doom(tm)

      and sony *isn't* an evil-megacorporation-of-doom(tm)? huh?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    10. Re:More, more, more! by G-funk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not everybody here thinks so. I quite like sony, compared to a lot of companies out there. A black lion does not a voltron make, hence sony may be part of the evil-megacorporation-of-doom(tm), but it isn't necessarily one by itself.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    11. Re:More, more, more! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      No. Culture is generated in the relationships, between creator and artist, in the contexts in which people live. Any given song may have been created by a handful of people - the existence of genres of music production and listening, the fact that we all have experiences that are shared that make music relevant, that we have a shared language of experience, are the culture. I could have been more precise in my original wording, but *everyone* has a culture, and originality usually has nothing to do with. Many traditional cultures hand the songs and dances and stories down for generations, and it is in the sharing that it becomes a culture.

      And culture doesn't have a use. The figuration that you make when you say that is something that Heidegger addressed in "The Question Concerning Technology;" the tendency to approach everything only as a tool for some other end is a reduction of life to mere technology, mere means.

    12. Re:More, more, more! by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 2
      The more they do this the more enemies they will get and the less sympathy they will get from the public!!
      The more the public that isn't personally being milked like this - see the RIAA winning, the more they'll believe they're justified, and piracy must really be a problem. The first part of your sentence is shaky, but the last part sadly bears little resemblance to the culture we're in.
      --
      "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    13. Re:More, more, more! by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 2
      It seems like a mighty small trickle to me.

      It only takes a few small trickles to realize the dam is about to burst.

      Like it or not, this is going to get worse before it gets any better. And with a public case like this settled out of court for a sizable amount of money (and all because of employee misconduct), you can bet there will be a chilling effect on companies attitudes to MP3 files in the workplace. What once would have been a "stop doing that" will now probably get you an audience with a member of Human Resources interested in meeting the quarterly headcount reduction task.

      It may look like "oh, just a million dollars... big deal" from the outside, but this is a pretty substantial victory for the RIAA.

    14. Re:More, more, more! by Gannoc · · Score: 2
      A black lion does not a voltron make

      That's the best quote/saying i've heard in a while. I'm looking forward to the next time I use that.

  2. And this is wrong why? by nedron · · Score: 2, Troll

    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.
    1. Re:And this is wrong why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Huh? 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". But now if I take those same CDs into work, convert them into MP3s, and let the same people listen to them, now its "pirating"? All these people did was use the corporate network to timeshift the playing of a few CDs; this sort of falls in the grey area between fair use and exploitation, but by no means justifies a million dollar fine.

    2. Re:And this is wrong why? by maraist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A company promoting piracy is even worse than the individual person who feels it's OK to shoplift or steal music.

      Piracy is when you take music that didn't belong to you (or your immediate family). We're not talking the distribution of music.. We're talking the playing of music threw a digital loud-speaker. It's at most no different than a company playing a CD throw a real loud-speaker, getting caught by the immorally abusive RIAA. I can not believe such an offence is worth $1 million in back-pay (ignoring for a moment, that I believe that such activity is illegal).

      If individuals pirate the music off the mp3 server, then they are individually responsible for piracy.

      The whole question of napster is still unresolved as far as I'm concerned, so my chief argument is that it's not a cut and dry bad company.

      -Michael

      --
      -Michael
    3. Re:And this is wrong why? by Enry · · Score: 2

      Technically, it's a public performance if it's going out a loudspeaker, which makes it no different than playing it at a ballpark or over the airwaves. Even hold music (we appreciate your business, blah) has to be licensed through the appropriate groups (BMI, etc.).

      Not that I agree with it. *mutter*

    4. Re:And this is wrong why? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Piracy is when you take music that didn't belong to you (or your immediate family). We're not talking the distribution of music

      Actually we are talking about that, "post and share"

      If individuals pirate the music off the mp3 server, then they are individually responsible for piracy

      It seems that is not what happened, "server dedicated solely"

      From the article:

      ... IIS's company server dedicated solely to allowing employees to post and share thousands of copyrighted MP3 files ...

    5. Re:And this is wrong why? by maraist · · Score: 2

      My point was the amount of the fine was not comparable to a suite against a loud-speaker.. Yes a court agreed with you on the amount, but that's circumstantial; doesn't make the judgement right.

      I personally am disgusted that loud-speakers are illegal to use on owned media, but I understand that courts currently rule that way.

      --
      -Michael
    6. Re:And this is wrong why? by Dudio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would likely be covered under the right of public performance. It's tricky to figure out exactly where to draw the line though. For example, is the guy in the riced-out Civic playing Who Let The Dogs Out at 150 db at a red light giving a public performance? What about the guy who plays the same CD in a restaurant kitchen after closing?

    7. Re:And this is wrong why? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      What about the restaurant case? Are you saying the RIAA should be allowed to shake down mom-and-pop restaurants that pop a CD in their stereos during dinner?

    8. Re:And this is wrong why? by mark_lybarger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you're displaying it in a manner that is explicitly designed for public consumtion, then it's a public performance. ie, if you stand on a street corner, and jam the boom box with copyrighted material, then it's a public performance. if you're playing music in the kitchen, when the dinning room is cleared, then it's private fair use.

      if you're playing copyright material to an office of people, it would most likely be public performance.

      you cannot take a projector and a dvd/vcr or whatever and play any movie up on the side a building at night time for anyone to watch. you need permission from the copyright holders to do that.

    9. Re:And this is wrong why? by dimator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      now if I take those same CDs into work, convert them into MP3s, and let the same people listen to them, now its "pirating"?

      What if you're using your CD in your car, and someone at your work is listening to the same CD's mp3's? You got two people using the same disc, essentially.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    10. Re:And this is wrong why? by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2

      yep, they certainly should. a restaurant is all about ambiance, with some high priced dinners and drink. they're creating or adding to their ambiance by playing those cd's during dinner (after closing hours is a different thing), and they're making a profit from that ambiance. i'm assuming you mean for the cd's they're playing to be standard off the shelf consumer cd's licensed for home private use, right? well that's fine and dandy as long as they're not making a financial profit from the use of it, which the restaurant you mention is certainly doing.

      i believe it's ok for them to play public radio channels though, as that's public air, and they're not really playing copyright material, just playing the radio. i know cracker barrel plays public radio channels on their speakers during dinner

    11. Re:And this is wrong why? by nihilogos · · Score: 2

      If they played it in a restaurant for customers, that would be one thing, but this is private activity completely unrelated to the job.

      The weird thing is, when I did time in coffee shops we'd play music without a public licence and the number of customers who's come up and ask "what cd is that and where can I buy it from?" Essentially they're looking to charge you money for promoting their products.

      --
      :wq
    12. Re:And this is wrong why? by G-funk · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you can play music on a speaker as long as the general public can't hear it. For example I can park my car and crank up the music for my friends to hear, even when we're out of the car. I can also play music at work without using headphones, and I can turn it up loud enough for the person next to me to hear it, but if I worked in a supermarket that would be a no-no.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    13. Re:And this is wrong why? by mmusn · · Score: 2

      And your point is what? That we should stop any activity that may lead to copyright violation? If that is illegal, then punish the people who made the CDs. Of course, it isn't even clear that making private copies for personal use is even a copyright violation.

    14. Re:And this is wrong why? by mmusn · · Score: 2

      That is the law. It's a public performance. However, it is unclear to me why a bunch of software developers that play music, whether analog or MP3, are engaging in a public performance. There is nothing public about it, nor is it related to the business. As I was saying, I would like to see a more serious legal test.

    15. Re:And this is wrong why? by glitch! · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know about you, but when I power up xmms and listen to an mp3, I'm wearing an eyepatch.

      That reminds me of a copy program for the Amiga. "Illegal copies? No, sir, it's for backups..." And when you start it up, it has a (nauseating) animated gold background with the repeating song, "Yo Ho! Yo Ho! A Pirate's life for me!".

      :-)

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    16. Re:And this is wrong why? by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > 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".

      Nice try, but how often is this really the case? It's like the tired old excuse that Napster is used to promote new artists and piracy is just a nasty and unfortunate side effect. Not gonna work here, we all know better.

      For those of you who actually purchased copies of the MP3s you listen to, congratualtions, I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about in court.

    17. Re:And this is wrong why? by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, wrong.

      If you are listening to music on the street or in the office and people overhear it, no infringement. If you rent a flick and invite 20 people over to watch it, that's not infringement.

      If you charge people for the above, that is infringement.

      If you disseminate the material, ala storing MP3s on a server, or display a movie in a public venue like the side of a building or in Central Park, then you are infringing.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    18. Re:And this is wrong why? by -Harlequin- · · Score: 2

      For those of you who actually purchased copies of the MP3s you listen to, congratualtions, I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about in court.

      Speaking as one of these people, I think I have a lot to worry about - the ridiculous findings so far suggest the US courts are almost as PWN3D as congress. Not to mention the likelyhood of mp3 players being banned outright by Hollywood-sockpuppet-Hollings.

      I might not be so worried about doing actual hard jail time, but I'm certainly worried about the loss of rights, merely so that luddite lobbiests get their corporate welfare.

    19. Re:And this is wrong why? by fishebulb · · Score: 2

      copying a cd for your car which is a permanent transfer of content is not illegal. a copy for your sister is also legal

    20. Re:And this is wrong why? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      You got two people using the same disc, essentially.

      And..... and what? The universe explodes? Time starts moving backwards? Giant marshmallow-men roam the streets? Somewhere, a musican you don't know dies?

      Copyright law is really starting to smell, if you ask me. Somebody better drag it out of the room before it really stinks up the place.

    21. Re:And this is wrong why? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 2

      From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
      piracy

      1: robbery on the high seas; taking a ship away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it [syn: {buccaneering}]
      2: the act of falsely representing the ideas or work of others as your own [syn: {plagiarization}, {plagiarisation}]

      Hmm, I think if they stay on dry land, #1 is taken care of, and if they use footnotes or something, #2 is taken care of. No worries!

    22. Re:And this is wrong why? by fanatic · · Score: 2

      But, I don't think you have the license to broadcast music in a company

      I bought the CD. Fair use says I can share it with my friends. Unless RIAA can come up with a license agreement that I signed that says I don't own what I bought and paid for, they can kiss my ass.

      And if piracy is denying the artist the fruits of his/her labor, then RIAA has committed more piracy than a billion Napster users.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    23. Re:And this is wrong why? by maraist · · Score: 2

      This is pure bullshit, because by your thinking, we could just play the music through one big digital loudspeaker across the entire world and it'd be OK.

      There's a BIG difference between a loud "speaker" and broadcast. Broadcasting is coverted sufficiently (e.g. radio transmission, and currently the napster simulcast, bla bla bla). The issue is that of constrained transmission, e.g. a "loud speaker", or an intranet, where a finite number of users are affected. We're talking chump change, and not the buy once, distribute infinitely. With this, it's regional purchasing which has a spot hit-rate similar to the sale of CDs as it stands (maybe with one additional order of magnitude). Unless these individuals then rebroadcast their local copies (e.g. have home broadband connections where they share music pirated from work), then there's no statistical harm, since each micro-cosm must purchase an original copy.

      -Michael

      --
      -Michael
    24. Re:And this is wrong why? by God!+Awful · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Huh? 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". But now if I take those same CDs into work, convert them into MP3s, and let the same people listen to them, now its "pirating"? All these people did was use the corporate network to timeshift the playing of a few CDs; this sort of falls in the grey area between fair use and exploitation, but by no means justifies a million dollar fine.
      Actually, that's not fair use, as others have pointed out. (And fair use is not an absolute right, as we heard on Slashdot last week.)

      Playing your boombox at work loud enough for everyone to hear is an illegal broadcast, but it's a grey area. The music companies probably aren't going to come after you because:

      a) it's not a serious offense
      b) it's probably not costing them any money
      c) it's hard to enforce
      d) if you did this in a large office, you would be shot

      I know that there's a certain culture on Slashdot that doesn't seem to understand the concept of a grey area. I don't know why; maybe writing code in binary makes people think in terms of Boolean logic. Running an MP3 "sharing" server at work is illegal because it is an obvious attempt to defraud the copyright owners. Playing a cd in your car in the presence of two friends is not an illegal broadcast because your intent is not to defraud the copyright owner. Sometimes, in the real world, you have to use your judgement.

      It's one thing to violate the letter of the law without violating the intent; it is quite another to manipulate the law by exploiting a loophole. As soon as you start trying to exploit a loophole in the system, they're going to come after you. Now you can do some real damage to their business. You can play your cds at a private party, but you can't play your cds over the PA in a supermarket, even if you try to spin it as a "food party".

      Plus there is a difference between listening to a song because it happens to be on the radio, and choosing which song to listen to because you have millions of MP3s on a server. You may think that's splitting hairs, but it's not. It's not a distinction between black and white, it's a grey area. You may define ownership however you like, but the record companies are pragmatic. They know that what makes music worth buying is the ability to choose when to listen to it.

      -a

      --
      How to rationalize theft.
    25. Re:And this is wrong why? by Technician · · Score: 2

      Actualy you can crank up the car stereo and be legal as long as you are not breaking any noise laws. I looked into playing music at a movie theatre. I learned a boom box is legal in an office, but not in public. You are limited to the two speakers on the boom box. Running extension speakers for the rest of the office is a no-no without a seprate lisence. Department store and supermarket background music is usualy a subscription service that includes the royalty payments. Doing your own DJ'ing from your personal collection for an office, movie theatre, or supermarket without an extra royalty lisence is a big time no-no. In a nutshell, the cost was prohibitive to run music in intermissions. We now run silence as the intermission feature.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    26. Re:And this is wrong why? by phyxeld · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...you need permission from the copyright holders to do that...

      No, I don't. Maybe you need [sissy-voice]permission from the copyright holders[/sissy-voice], but those of us with common sense, self respect, and/or an ounce of dignity will go on continuing to do whatever we damn well please with whatever digital media we can get our grubby unwashed hands onto, regardless of who owns what or how many people are listening.

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    27. Re:And this is wrong why? by JanusFury · · Score: 2, Funny
      And..... and what? The universe explodes? Time starts moving backwards? Giant marshmallow-men roam the streets? Somewhere, a musican you don't know dies?
      Whoa, I can kill musicians by pirating their music? Time to go buy some Britney Spears CD's! :)
      --
      using namespace slashdot;
      troll::post();
    28. Re:And this is wrong why? by Cally · · Score: 2

      Huh? 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".


      No: that's public performance, not fair use. Your employer needs to buy a mechanical rights license from whatever the US equivalent of the UK's PRS (Performing Rights Society) is. The PRS have a long history of catching out small restautants, cafes, etc etc for playing music to customers - yes, even a transistor radio behind the counter, counts - without paying for a PRS license. You see small oval PRS stickers on shop windows.
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    29. Re:And this is wrong why? by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 2

      Nah... owning a Congressman is more expensive... but they usually don't throw feces at you.

    30. Re:And this is wrong why? by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > I see. And we call this "Dan Hendrick's version of Copyright law"? Real copyright law isn't supposed to work that way. And our elected representatives could see to it that it doesn't if they weren't in the pockets of the media companies.

      1. If you really have an opinion, why are you posting anonymously, especially if you want to debate.
      2. Yes, it is my version of "Copyright Law". I thought it was clear I was posting an opinion.
      3. I'll pay for your court costs if you pay for mine. How's that?
      4. Why don't you write a letter to your representative instead of telling me my opinion is wrong? They don't listen, you say? Be sure to vote in the next election then.

      Tool.

    31. Re:And this is wrong why? by Ioldanach · · Score: 2

      i believe it's ok for them to play public radio channels though, as that's public air

      Morally, yes, since the number of listeners can boost the radio station's ratings which cascades into advertising revenues and royalties paid by the radio station to play the music.

      However, fees are still collected (by ASCAP?) for this, since that's public performance of a work without a license for it. The fees here are a double-tax on the music, since its already been paid for at the radio station level. Personally, I have issues with the legality of this, but I don't know of any mom-and-pop restaurant that's successfully fought it.

    32. Re:And this is wrong why? by EllisDees · · Score: 2

      Since when is an office public space?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    33. Re:And this is wrong why? by Technician · · Score: 2

      Yes if the music they play was written by someone other than the band. Not too many bands write their own music. Even a public performance of Happy Birthday to You by your charming 5 year old kid can get you in hot water. The lyrics are copyrighted.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    34. Re:And this is wrong why? by maxpublic · · Score: 2

      Why don't you provide some actual, empirical evidence that this 'piracy' you speak of is actually harming the industry? Oh, wait - you can't, because no such evidence exists. My bad.

      While you're at it, tell me again why laws should be passed to protect 20th century business practices in a 21st century world, in direct contravention to the free market?

      Ooooh, wait, "we know better". At least Hendrick does, and in his infinite wisdom speaks for the vast majority of Slashdotters, and perhaps even for the majority of Americans.

      Arrogant little prick.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    35. Re:And this is wrong why? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      and you have commited copyright infringement.
      The real problems is that the RIAA did not have to prove you violated Copyright infringement.

      The universe explodes? Time starts moving backwards? Giant marshmallow-men roam the streets? Somewhere, a musican you don't know dies?

      since none of this will happwn for violating ANY law, perhaps all laws should be repealed?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:And this is wrong why? by -=Izzy=- · · Score: 2

      they dont?

      what do ya call the DMCA then?

  3. Who's the Rat? by Silver222 · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    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
    1. Re:Who's the Rat? by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This happened to a friend of mines company ... This guy *installed* pirate software himself on alot of the machines in the office, when he got fired he called the BSA and reported the software *he* had installed. BSA blackmailed the company for 150,000$, they went bankrupt 6 mos later ... (they were headed for bankrupcy regardless, but the BSA signed their death warrant).

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:Who's the Rat? by BCoates · · Score: 2

      buckets of spam and power outages for the rest of their lives

      Not getting a job near a computer again would work, too... If it's legal to post the name and address of doctors who perform abortions, it's probabaly legal to publish a "blacklist" of people that have accepted BSA/RIAA/etc. snitch money, right?

      --
      Benjamin Coates

  4. Bloody typical by Lurgen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bloody typical by Lurgen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope, they provide a central point of control for an artistic medium as a "value add" service.

      They control the format in which artists may distribute their work, the format in which we (the customer, who is apparently always right) may store the product we purchased. They offer the artist the option of enforcement, seeing to it that life is as inconvenient for the consumer as humanly possible.

      Seriously though, I'd like to see a serious list of the services the record companies provide - advertising for music is almost nonexistent (I hardly ever see a poster or TV commercial that is specifically advertising an album or single, unless it's one of those compilation CD's). Face it - the ultimate form of advertising for music is wide distribution. The more times you hear their songs, the more likely you are to buy the CD. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a song on the radio, at work, or at home in MP3 format and gone out and purchased the entire album.

      Sure, you can download the whole thing. But people like actually holding the product.

      So since I'm a moron, how 'bout you elaborate on your flame - some details on these services would surely shed some light on this topic for myself (and all the other morons out here).

    2. Re:Bloody typical by dghcasp · · Score: 2
      if we brought our original CD's in, stuck them in a CD tower, and played them at work, that'd be legal [...]

      Um, actually it wouldn't, because that would constitute "public performance," which is basically the same as a broadcast, which means you have to pay the RIAA money.

      It's the same reason that restraunts don't sing "Happy Birthday" to their patrons anymore; they don't want to pay for the rights to perform the song.

    3. Re:Bloody typical by einTier · · Score: 2
      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....


      This is a very good point. Not to split hairs here, but let's just go down a logical reasoning path. It's legal for me to bring my CDs to work and listen to them in a CD player. I could also turn it up loud enough that the people in surrounding cubicles could hear it, and that's legal too. Now, it's debatable, but provided the company isn't open to the general public, I could put the CD on the company's loudspeakers and play it loud enough for everyone to hear, and that's legal. Now, what if I put the CD in the CD-ROM drive of my computer and share it on the network so that Jane in the cubicle three floors down can listen to it -- sparing me the time and effort to hand deliver it to her. Is that infringing? What if I let everyone access it? What if I put together some massive 100 cd-rom computer and load that full of discs for the office to share? Is that infringing?

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    4. Re:Bloody typical by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      but that the key.. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. there is no law that specifically prohibits it. and in fact the largest amount of money the RIAA could have got if this company IIS (funny how a company with the name IIS folds under pressure as it's micrsoft cousin) would have had a small amount of balls and forced it to go to court they would have had to pay approximately $1500.00 in ASCAP and BMI fees for a non-profit broadcaster with a limited audience for each year they existed.

      this was a setup... possibly even a fake "settlement" staged by the RIAA for publicity and propaganda.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Bloody typical by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 2

      Lurgen wrote:

      Seriously though, I'd like to see a serious list of the services the record companies provide - advertising for music is almost nonexistent (I hardly ever see a poster or TV commercial that is specifically advertising an album or single, unless it's one of those compilation CD's). Face it - the ultimate form of advertising for music is wide distribution. The more times you hear their songs, the more likely you are to buy the CD. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a song on the radio, at work, or at home in MP3 format and gone out and purchased the entire album.

      The major labels do actually provide a lot of grunt work and services (including advertising). I won't debate the efficacy of the services, but among other things, a good label provides:

      • Money. Most musicians can't afford to even create a quality recording, much less professional artwork, posters, image, PR, videos, etc. That doesn't even take into account whether or not the artist knows how to do any of those things (or knows someone who does and is willing to work for free/cheap). I'm ignoring the abhorent contract conditions that are attached to this money, the fact is that most musicians can't afford the game. This is changing somewhat as artists get more media saavy and the equipment needed to do these things gets cheaper. But even if you have all of those things, you still don't have...

      • Access. MTV isn't going to put just any video into rotation. They're only going to take videos from "serious" artists and "serious" artists are only on major labels. (I'll ignore the convenient fact that most major media outlets are owned by the same companies that own the labels).

        Then there's radio. I don't know if you've tried to get a song played on your local major market Clear Channel station, but it ain't gonna happen. Heck, these stations don't even play alternate, "non-approved" tracks from major artists that they already play. So if you aren't on a major label, fuggedaboudit. Even College Radio has gotten mercenary over the last 5-7 years. An unknown, unproven, unbacked independent artist simply doesn't have access. A major label liberally greases the wheels (and palms) to get their projects the wide exposure you spoke about. Don't forget that it's also really hard to get shelf space at the local wrecka sto which brings me to...

      • Distribution. It's a big big job to get millions of CDs pressed, stocked, and sold. Some of the major chains will accept "local artists" but normally only if it comes through a known distributor. And known distributors don't take just any artist's stuff. If they don't already own their own distribution channels, the labels work very hard and have people dedicated to establishing and maintaining good relations with the major distribution companies.

      • Image, positioning, style, etc. The labels spend a lot of money (for better or worse) on focus groups and market research and can help smooth out an artist's rough edges to create a very slick package. Sometimes the artist doesn't need this (or provides it through their own people).

      These are just some of the things that a major label provides that are valuable, especially to an artist who doesn't have the skill, time, or knowledge to do themselves. I'm not saying, however, that it's necessarily a good deal for the artist. The way modern record contracts work, a new band has to sell well over 2.5 million units just to break even. It's best to think of major labels as banks that loan money out with about a 40% interest rate.

      But if you want to be a star - want the rich and famous lifestyle, the celebrity, the True Hollywood Story and the eventual "Behind The Music" segment, majors are still pretty much the only game in town. There are exceptions (Ani Difranco for example), but by and large, big time celebrity is still the domain of the majors.

      The thing that most non-musicians or casual musicians overlook in all of this is that any musician going after a big label contract (or even major sales of an indepent release) has decided to become a business. They are a business and their product takes the form of music. It's impossible for a major label artist to "sell out" because they already made that decision a long time ago. There are good strategic alliances in business and bad ones - it all depends on what the goals of the business are. If the goal is to become famous (and maybe rich, then a major label is the way to go. If the goal is moderate celebrity, a bigger piece of the pie, and more artistic control, then the independent release is a better bet. If money is the only concern, start a cover band and play every wedding and frat party you can find.

      I'm really tired of the RIAA attacking consumer rights, but I'm also really tired of musicians like Courtney Love who do anything to become stars and then whine about what a crappy deal they got. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, and if they didn't, then it's nobody's fault but their own. Nobody forced them to sign the contract.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

    6. Re:Bloody typical by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 2
      Um, actually it wouldn't, because that would constitute "public performance," which is basically the same as a broadcast, which means you have to pay the RIAA money.

      That's not correct. Public performance rights are handled by (surprisingly enough) the performing rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (In the U.S., anyway). The RIAA is only concerned with unauthorized duplication.

      In this particular case, the RIAA sued because the company was facilitating widespread duplication of the encoded music, not because it was being broadcast or performed. I'm definitely not in favor of the RIAA's actions in recent years, but in this case, they're well within their rights. A good parallel would be if this was 1980 and the company set up a server where employees brought their records in, the company recorded them onto giant tape reels, and then anyone could bring in a box of cassettes and make copies of anything they wanted.

      It's one thing to make a copy of an album for a friend (one to one) - technically a possible infringement, but not worth pro- ecuting. It's another thing when a company sanctions copying between all employees (many to many).

      The other major copyright considerations are mechanical rights (the permission to affix an artistic work to a "thing" like a CD, record, or tape, synchronization rights (the permission to synchronize music with visual images like movies, TV shows, or music videos) and compulsory licenses. The latter says that after an author has exercised their right to be the first person to record a work, any person desiring to record a version of the work must be given a license to do so. The rates are fairly affordable and set by the government.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

    7. Re:Bloody typical by jafac · · Score: 2

      I was driving to work today. I live near a winery, and I saw a trail of red on the pavement, apparently wine that was leaking from the back of a delivery tanker.

      I thought to myself - man, that red trail must be worth thousands of dollars.

      Then I thought to myself - wait, that wine isn't worth thousands of dollars. It's not yet in a store, on a shelf, in a bottle with a label on it from a trendy distributor.

      That's my opinion of the value of Record Labels. And also my opinion of the BSA's estimates of how much stolen software is worth. Copied data was never in a shrink-wrapped package on a shelf, with cost-centers like manufacturing, shipping, and record-store employee salaries tied to it.

      An estimate CAN be made of *design* costs (how much the musician earns in royalties per copy, plus music production costs (not CD duplication costs) plus studio time, or in the case of software, the combined salaries of the developers over the life of the project plus hardware and other support costs - but this is nowhere NEAR the retail value of the software, or lost revenue/profit. If you sell 10000 copies, and you've paid for your design expenses, it costs you NOTHING when someone copies the data for the 10,001st time.

      Record companies, artists, software producers, have every right to enforce the re-couping of costs to invent, design, and produce master copies. And they have every right to charge for manufacturing costs on manufactured goods. But they should have no fucking right to charge for manufacturing costs on products that weren't manufactured. The market simply won't justify that - in a supply-demand world, digital goods have an infinite supply. In a digital world, manufacturing costs are equivalent to the cost of running an ftp server on the internet.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess these Universities are going to be next...

    Quote:
    A new file-sharing program called Phynd is burrowing in at a handful of universities...

    ...Phynd limits its searches and its users to computers on the network on which the program is running.

    http://chronicle.com/free/2002/04/2002040402t.ht m

  6. messages sent: by drDugan · · Score: 5, Interesting


    """
    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.

    1. Re:messages sent: by Wintersmute · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll be the first one to line up against the heavy-handed tactics of the RIAA, but I think we should pick our battles, folks. Does anyone complain when the local sports bar licenses pay-per-view broadcasts, or when the proverbial dance hall pays licensing fees for music?

      Yet here, its not even clear that anyone actually bought the damn CDs in the first place. We've reached a point where we're so aggravated about the stranglehold that Hollywood and the labels have that at first utterance of mp3 we're spouting the same old 'information-wants-to-be-free' rhetoric.

      Those "antiquated" ideas of copyright ownership were a contract between creators and the public that worked since the Statute of Anne. Calling them "antiquated" just plays into the hands of the content-producers who would just as happily grind us inexorably toward pay-per-use purgatory.

      Copyright worked. The DMCA doesn't. Confusing the two is like confusing pedophilia with Catholicism.

      --
      It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
    2. Re:messages sent: by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      Calling them "antiquated" just plays into the hands of the content-producers who would just as happily grind us inexorably toward pay-per-use purgatory.
      They are still antiquated. The creators need to negotiate their contracts ahead of time now. I don't "pay per use" for my shirt; I bought my shirt, I can give my shirt to whoever I like, I can try to sew a comparable shirt. It's a good. The services involved - designing it, sewing it - were paid for *in advance.* I'm no longer paying for those services, no matter how many times I wear this shirt or to how many people I lend it or how many times I'm photographed in it.

      The RIAA is what the Buggy Whip Manufacturer's Association would have been if they around in a corrupt era of lobbyist politics, and had the morals of pimps.

    3. Re:messages sent: by sacherjj · · Score: 2

      Can you store your shirt on a server and make identical, perfect copies of it? No. Didn't think so. I may partly agree with you, but the issue isn't that simple.

    4. Re:messages sent: by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      I can make copies that are close enough. Most shirts aren't that complicated. (And, patterns *can* be stored on a server.) If I tried to sell copies as coming from the original, I would draw a line there: that's a form of fraud, like plaigarism, claiming I did something I didn't do.

    5. Re:messages sent: by TotallyUseless · · Score: 2

      A dance hall makes money off the music they play. Not much of a dance hall with no music. The music brings in the customers. Local sports bars make money off of the pay per views they show. They bring in a lot more customers. IIS on the other hand did not use the music to make money, to bring in new customers, etc. The music server was there for employees only. No 'Public Broadcast' ever occurred, unlike the case in dance halls and sports bars. I think if IIS is going to pay the fine, then they should hook up some huge loudspeakers to the outside of their building, and crank it up to concert level. Then they will be giving a public performance

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    6. Re:messages sent: by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      I think if IIS is going to pay the fine, then they should hook up some huge loudspeakers to the outside of their building, and crank it up to concert level. Then they will be giving a public performance

      Heaven help me for being even marginally on the same side as the RIAA, but this suggestion is wrong-headed. IIS paid a fine, not a license fee. They shelled out because they were caught infringing copyright and are being punished for it. They did not secure the right to play in concert.


      Or do you think paying a traffic ticket gives you the "right" to speed?

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    7. Re:messages sent: by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Can you store your shirt on a server and make identical, perfect copies of it?


      Which is why, of course, it is absurd to call intellectual output "property". Of course, originally it wasn't considered "property" -- that is why the Framers saw fit to put in a specific Copyright Clause in the first place. Since the sanctity of (actual) property was already well-established, if intellectual output had been property, they wouldn't have needed a separate clause to protect it. (A major premise of constitutional law is the economy of words.)


      So, I agree that the "antiquated" laws are not the problem. It's the newfangled ones that are mucking us up ... as was so often the case, the Framers -- if you study their thinking as well as the document -- got it right.

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    8. Re:messages sent: by s390 · · Score: 2

      Copyright worked. The DMCA doesn't. Confusing the two is like confusing pedophilia with Catholicism.

      Maybe that's a bad analogy. Lately, it does seem like a few _priests_ confused those last two.

    9. Re:messages sent: by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      That it is currently illegal (or, more accurately, a violation of copyright) I don't dispute. What I am disputing is whether it makes sense that it's illegal, whether it is reasonable in terms of actual human nature and the practice of day to day life to continue to support the fiction that makes it illegal. A law that you just, quite casually, admit to breaking and you quite likekly intend to continue breaking, is probably one very bad law. I want to have more of us agree that it makes no sense to treat these works in such a way, that it's an unteneble, anti-intuitive, irrational model. Once a critical mass of people are on board for that understanding, then we may be able to change the legality question.

    10. Re:messages sent: by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
      I can try to sew a comparable shirt.

      Not sure about that one. Lacoste would certainly disagree. Except maybe if you have the crocodile look the wrong way ;-)

      I'm no longer paying for those services, no matter how many times I wear this shirt or to how many people I lend it or how many times I'm photographed in it.

      I've heard a story about a promotional T-Shirt that HP distributed to its employees. The slogan said "Just do it with Brio" (Brio being a new PC that they were launching). Nike was not amused.

      In the end, HP had to forbid their employees to wear these shirts in public. (I only wonder why Nike didn't insist that HP should collect them back... probably they figured that most employees would just pretend to have lost the shirt...)

      So, even though a T-shirt is a tangible good, it's still not free of intellectual property.

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    11. Re:messages sent: by prizog · · Score: 2

      Confusing the two is like confusing pedophilia with Catholicism.


      Silence or complicity in wrongdoing is still wrongdoing.

      --
      Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
    12. Re:messages sent: by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      I prefer them going after individual infringers (such as this case) than to see them try to legislate built-in copy-protect that applies to everybody -- including those guilty of nothing at all.

      The corporate mp3 sharing network was illegal -- that point isn't even debatable.

      If the RIAA were going after someone because they have an mp3 from an album they already own, on his/her own computer, then I would be upset.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    13. Re:messages sent: by jafac · · Score: 2

      I've been thinking about this over and over in my head since I first taped an LP back in the dark ages, sometime in the early 1980's. There's a certain sense of "right and wrong" that I have - that I was raised with. It keeps me from stealing. It keeps me from wringing people's necks when they piss me off. It keeps me from cheating at cards. But for some reason, I have a really difficult time believing that it's wrong to make a copy, as long as I'm not profiting from it.
      And when I read the fair use provisions in the 1992 AHRA, I thought - wow, that's very level-headed and fair. Hence "fair use". I thought that sure, authors' rights needed to be protected, but on the other hand, you can't tell a book reviewer, for instance, that it's illegal to quote a passage from a book. That's wrong. You can't tell a teacher of film history that it's illegal to show a clip from a movie (or even an entire movie) to a class. In my opinion, that's just wrong, and absolutely UN-American - goes against everything this country was founded on. Sure it's wrong for me to spool out 10 tapes of the latest Pink Floyd LP and sell copies to my friends. But make a tape for a friend so they can listen to it, so we can talk about a particular lyric or guitar rif, what the fuck is wrong with that?

      The trouble arises where this free exchange of music among friends, begins to replace the legitimate paid-for music collections of millions of people. I can see wanting to suppress that - but at it's heart, it's no different than sharing a tape with a friend - those 50,000 people connected to my box via Napster are all my friends. We chat on line, if we lived in the same area, I'm sure we'd probably get together and discuss how cool The Wall was, have a beer or two, and I sure as hell didn't get any money from them for the music. It just doesn't trigger that little red warning light on my "right and wrong" meter in the back of my head.

      Sure, society tries to pre-empt your built-in "right and wrong" meter by making laws. It's confusing, hey, dont' drink until you're 21. But when you're 18, you just can't see why it's a problem. Doesn't seem wrong. But there's a law that says it's wrong. But that doesn't make it so.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  7. Who does the RIAA think they are? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2
    It is one thing to press CD's of music and try to sell them as if you are the original publisher. However, it is something completely different to allow friends or coworkers to copy your CD's when no money is involved.

    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.
  8. Re:In other news by cscx · · Score: 2

    Actually, the Gnucleus Gnutella client let's you configure it so that it only searches the local network for nodes. I guess we should go after... umm... "any university not actively snooping for P2P packets."

  9. How did the RIAA find out? by reynaert · · Score: 2

    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 :)

    1. Re:How did the RIAA find out? by glwtta · · Score: 2

      Something we like to call "reading the article" comes into play here: Frank Creighton, RIAA's director of anti-piracy, who said the RIAA got a tip about IIS via an email.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:How did the RIAA find out? by Cheeze · · Score: 2

      i would also like to say that anywhere where there are a few comptuers networked, there are plenty of mp3s shared. this includes bingo parlors, airports, and schools from around 8th grade and up. what would the charge be if they had not settled out of court? would they have to add up all of the costs of every song on every cd? having 3000 mp3s would mean around 4500 different cds by different bands. 4500 different cds time the average in this area of $18 per cd is $81,000. that's lots cheaper than the $1,000,000. a company with that much community would probably be able to chip in and pay that off. a company that gives their employees that type of perk will attract much more business as they get plenty of free advertisement, for a minimal cost. i think the IIS were fools for paying that much. they just didn't do the math.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
  10. Hidden Feature by shogun · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  11. Wow by gewalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Wow by dattaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The logic of this event smells as if it has been staged. Some of the owners or investors may have had relations with those of the RIAA. They don't tell us if the RIAA is also contracting them to do some work in a mutual relationship.

      For $1,000,000, a great many legal arguments could have been explored and may have helped the restrictive entertainment laws we have. Sounds like someone made a private win-win deal to me.

      So, as a result of this, its legal to listen to the radio at work, but illegal to play a rack of CD's. Fine with those laws? Uh huh... They were either without principle and spineless, or accepting a deal. No one caves in like that without taking a kickback.

    2. Re:Wow by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. I've worked w/IISWeb and they have a long tradition of sleazy behavior and getting sued by pretty much everyone they come into contact with. While I don't want to get sued for libel/slander, the following is what I understood to be the relationship between them and my former employer. I heard this from people on my team including people close to the VP in charge of the project and subsequent lawsuit.

      The company I worked for contracted them to do a project, they said they'd deliver in X months. They had zero experience in the field and eventually admitted (in the process of being sued by our company) that they'd agreed to the contract (and put their loser team on it) only because they figured our company would go bankrupt before anything was due and they would get paid for 9 months of doing nothing.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    3. Re:Wow by dattaway · · Score: 2

      Ouch, I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know they were true spawns of Satan. Not only do they get to screw people on a routine basis, they also get to be the posterchild for the RIAA. Sounds like capitalism in the fast lane.

      So, will they now sue me for expressing my opinion of them in an internet forum?

    4. Re:Wow by jafac · · Score: 2

      funny you should mention that. I suddenly can't find the shares on our corporate MP3 server. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  12. Next thing you know... by Wolfier · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Next thing you know... by flacco · · Score: 2
      they'll be sending lawyers to beaches and the countrysides and sue people who illegally share their music by not using headphones...

      I wouldn't laugh just yet. That is a shade of "pay-per-use" isn't it?

      The sensible thing to do is to resolve never to buy a restricted CD, or a crippled / restricted consumer electronics device or computer. Naturally, the sheep will line up in droves, eager to submit to any humiliation to get their paws on the latest pile of luke-warm shit squeezed out by the mass-media factory.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  13. Artists by Zapdos · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Artists by flacco · · Score: 2
      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.

      Well, duh. The RIAA isn't in the debt collection business for "artists", they're in the enforcement business. Theoretically, the "artists" get their cut in the form of higher sales figures for their "art".

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    2. Re:Artists by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      "Not Likely"

      If I was an agent for RIAA represented artists,
      you're damned right I'd be asking for a list,
      and then demanding the share for my clients.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  14. Time to get modded down ... by bryanp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Time to get modded down ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Er.


      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.

    2. Re:Time to get modded down ... by glwtta · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The only way this would have been "ok" would be if every single employee owned all of those CD's.

      Why?? If I bring a CD to work and play it, does every person who hears it have to own the CD? How is it different just because the music is on a server and not a CD?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Time to get modded down ... by CaseStudy · · Score: 2

      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?

      These aren't the same thing.

      A group of friends listening to the same CD doesn't constitute a public performance, but a group of employees listening to it in the workplace does. The definition of public performance includes anywhere "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

      Lending out a CD is permitted under the first sale doctrine.

      I'm not familiar with the Home Audio Recording Act, so I can't really comment on "archival" copies. But I really doubt giving cassette copies out to your friends falls under the scope of the act.

      (No, this isn't legal advice, and you're not a client.)

    4. Re:Time to get modded down ... by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Not liking them doesn't give you the right to steal from them.

      Luckily, that's not what IIS was doing. Of course, not liking the policies of the RIAA doesn't give us the right to infringe their copyrights, which does seem to have been going on. So IIS loses this one on merits.


      But "infringement" is not "theft" because (in a sane, logical world) intellectual output is not "property". IIS has taken nothing from the RIAA or its members. What IIS did was, of course, violate an exclusive right given to the RIAA by the Constitution through the much-mangled Copyright Act. This is not the same thing as "theft"... any more than illegally preventing someone's access to his/her place of work would be "murder".

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    5. Re:Time to get modded down ... by glwtta · · Score: 2
      Reading a law is boring, not to mention that it now changes every five minutes. :)

      So what you are saying then is that it would be illegal for me to make a copy of the CD, bring that to work and listen to it with my co-workers, while listening to the original when I am home; but it's not illegal if I drag the actual CD around with me and do the same? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense (not saying anything about it being the law or not, not knowing anything about that).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:Time to get modded down ... by vicviper · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that at all. There are really 2 issues here (which may or may not be apart from what took place in the business in the article.)

      First, the question of copyright infringement arises when you made the copy of the CD you bought. IANAL but AFAIK making that copy is "fair-use".

      Second, the issue of a public performance. According to the law, the playing of digital music in a business environment is protected.

      So, I guess the question is "does the digital copying and subsequent playing in a business environment violate copyright law?" It's a question for a lawyer...

  15. Standard Practice for the industry by gkoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Standard Practice for the industry by josh+crawley · · Score: 2

      ---"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."---

      But as we learned back in World War 1, reparations never work. You must quickly stop the opposition. The way this applies is that when they start threatening you, you hit them, and hard (with a law suit preventing such behavior). You might even win a bit of money. And you're right, this is gonna cost bucks. Still, is the attorney money worth it in the long run when compared of how many times you might have to 'buy' them off?

    2. Re:Standard Practice for the industry by jafac · · Score: 2

      . . . (and led Congress to specifically exempt the Boy / Girl Scouts).

      ooh! I'm going to set up an MP3 server for our Cub Scout Pack tonight!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  16. how big is enough by maraist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:how big is enough by oni · · Score: 4, Funny

      other words, you can put your MP3 on our server, but you must give the CD to our corporate librarian to file with the rest of the "licenses".

      But I don't have the CD because I just downlo... ooohhh!

    2. Re:how big is enough by maraist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy, if you know its illegal you shouldn't be doing it. :)

      Someone at that company must have had broadband at home. Set up the server there and presto bingo! The likelyhood of it being the company's fault rather than your own just plummeted.

      You're missing the point. You _are_ allowed to put your purchased CD in the CD-ROM drive-tray at work last I checked. From that, it's trivial to rip the CD and save the files locally so you don't have to bring your entire CD collection back and forth from home. It is beyond immoral for a company to tell you how to live your life (e.g. that you must carry your original CDs with you as you would an ID card (which so far is only enforced for visa's and drivers licences in special circumstances)).

      Assuming that you agree with me thus far, then it is not too far of a stretch to fathom a personal archive of music at work on a work machine (much like you'd install your own background image, or heaven forbid, your own OS).

      While company policy might restrict such use of a computer (e.g. a bank that disallows entry/departure of data/files), most aren't this strict.

      A company that encourages a "happy" work environment might be more than willing to facilitate personal audio archives, and my concern is this is completely legal. BUT, as we all know, this doesn't stop interested parties in thwarting such use for their own profit. They could very easily loby congress to make such specific use illegal... And that's my beef.. That just because there is a law, doesn't mean it's the end of the story. There are millions of horrible and immoral laws. I personally feel strongly that such media restrictions fit into this category.

      -Michael

      --
      -Michael
  17. Link to primary-source RIAA statement by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 4, Informative
    If anyone wants it from the horse's, err, mouth, the RIAA has their PR for this on their website at

    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)

    1. Re:Link to primary-source RIAA statement by Sinistar2k · · Score: 2
      So... wait a sec... what's this bit?
      In August 2001, the RIAA sent IIS a letter asking that they immediately cease and desist from this practice and notified them that they could face legal and monetary penalties. Soon after, IIS entered into negotiations with the RIAA and agreed to settle the case out of court for $1 million.
      Once a cease and desist is sent and followed, isn't that usually where it ends? Why would IIS stop using the repository and then call up the RIAA and say, "So, how much can we pay you in damages?"

      The usual IANAL applies. Rip me a new one if I'm an idiot. Also... August 2001? Damn. Sure does take a LONG time to agree to a settlement these days.

  18. That would NOT be legal by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That would NOT be legal by liquidsin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems to be one of those grey areas. If I play a CD I purchased at home with some friends over, does that constitute a 'public performance'? Should I have to pay (even) more for a CD because my friends didn't technically purchase a license to listen to the music? How many people have to hear it to be considered a 'public performance'? Do we actually have any rights at all?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:That would NOT be legal by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Informative

      To follow up on the replies -- if the company owns the equipment a song is being played on, and other employees are listening in, it's considered a public performance. It's also technically illegal for a company to have a radio playing for the employees or the customers to listen. When those listening with you are your friends in a social atmosphere it's different; but a workplace or commercial establishment is considered a public venue.

      The hills are alive, with the sound of MUZAK. :-P

    3. Re:That would NOT be legal by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Informative

      The radio example came up a number of years ago in Australia. Most commercial radio stations got all thing about it and started prosecuting the local hairdresser's. From memory, one radio station declared that it encouraged people to tune into it at work and turn it up for everyone to hear. That soon put everything in perspective.

    4. Re:That would NOT be legal by alcmena · · Score: 3, Informative

      Should I have to pay (even) more for a CD because my friends didn't technically purchase a license to listen to the music?

      According to the xxAA, yes. Feel free to replace "xx" with "RI" and you have the music mafia. Or replace "xx" with "MP" and "music" with "movie" and you have the movie mafia. Either way, the answer stays the same. DIVX (not the codec) was the MPAA's dream. Pay for the movie every time you watch it. If you want to watch it at a friend's place, pay for it again. If you want to watch it upstairs, pay for it again.

      The RIAA is trying to do that exact same thing with music. I hope that it will fail as badly and that someone (anyone) pimp slaps some sense into them. If not, I'll switch to classical music. I'll have an easier time adjusting my taste in music than adjusting to the "pay-to-play" model the xxAA is trying to force down our throats.

    5. Re:That would NOT be legal by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Informative

      The law seems to be different in Australia. It's not the radio station who prosecutes; most radio stations would love to be played in public places. It's that much more exposure their advertising and their station gets. But the stations' licenses are for private use only, and if it's played in a public place without special arrangements, the record labels get huffy.

      That's why companies like Muzak have sprung up, with public performance licensing. Even MP3.com has gotten into the act, with audio streams meant for business use -- and the service is NOT free.

    6. Re:That would NOT be legal by vicviper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm excuse me. Are you a lawyer? Have you read Title 17 Chapter 1, section 114? IANAL, but I DID read the law.

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/114.html

      According to (d),1,(C),ii it's leagal as fuck.

      (assuming of course that it doesn't infringe on 106(6))

    7. Re:That would NOT be legal by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I donn't know about that, it depends on where you live. In my town you can get cited for snoring to loudly. (seriously, it's happend.)

    8. Re:That would NOT be legal by elandal · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't. Of course it depends on the size of the company, and the availability of the music.

      If it's a workgroup/department server where all the people know eachother, it probably isn't a public performance. However, in a large company sharing music to thousands of people You've never even heard of might as well be a public performance.

      Of course there are public performances for a small, selected audience, so it's not always safe unless You check with the CO lawyers first.

    9. Re:That would NOT be legal by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 2, Informative

      ^^^ Mod parent up ^^^

      I know everyone is too lazy to copy-paste, so the section he refers to says:

      "The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service, is not an infringement of section 106(6) if the performance is part of -
      ...
      a transmission that comes within any of the following categories -
      ...
      a transmission within a business establishment, confined to its premises or the immediately surrounding vicinity;"

    10. Re:That would NOT be legal by ameoba · · Score: 2

      why would the RIAA want to sink money into a repeat of the horrible failure that was DIVX?

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    11. Re:That would NOT be legal by ameoba · · Score: 2

      Isn't Australia one of the countries where you need to pay taxes/licence-fees for a radio, and the government subsidises the radio stations based on that? If so, I could see why a radio station would get snotty 'bout it.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    12. Re:That would NOT be legal by geekoid · · Score: 2

      only if the general public came in and out of your workplace as a matter of course. Like a shopping center, movie theater, etc...
      Thats why you can have a private party, play a cd, and not bein violation of the copyright.
      However, if you ripped a song from a cd, played it at the party, AND simultaniously played that song from the cd elsewhere, you would be in violation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Star Trek Moment by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

    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 .sig, someone WILL complai
  20. RIAA sues Technicolor by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Last week, the RIAA sued Technicolor Inc., one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of music and video programming, for allegedly producing pirated CDs of major artists.

    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....

    1. Re:RIAA sues Technicolor by Speare · · Score: 2

      Maybe they aren't working for the same goal after all...

      They have exactly the same goal, they just haven't fired the opening salvo of the cross-discipline battle yet. "There can be only one!"

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  21. Hearing TAX by uberkuba · · Score: 5, Funny

    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..

  22. Explain something to me... by ryanvm · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Explain something to me... by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The biggest distinction (for the moment, at least) is that libraries mostly deal with non-digital, not easily duplicatable media (ie books), which you have to return to them. Nothing was preventing the IIS employees from taking a copy of the entire MP3 collection home (as I understand it).

      But you are right, libraries are irking the so called "media publishers" more and more, I think they just aren't feeling in a strong enough position to eliminate them - it's a big undertaking, might take some time, but will definitely help revenues.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Explain something to me... by AntiNorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      There's a big difference that you're missing. Libraries allow patrons to borrow copyrighted material on the condition that said material will be returned and not illegally copied. If libraries were like MP3 servers as you claim they are, they would have printing presses in them, and you would take whatever books you want to the operator and have them make you a copy of the book. They would also have CD replication stations so that you could make copies of their CD collection at will.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    3. Re:Explain something to me... by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      It most certainly isn't the same thing. How many people have ever tried to use library photocopiers...ANY photocopier...to copy an entire book? That's right. Not very many people. It gets time-consuming and expensive very quickly. The photocopiers are there to allow fair use of the books, i.e. copying portions of them. Library staff would probably notice if you were trying to copy an entire book anyway (ex. 400 page book, copy 2 pages at a time, total time 10 seconds per copy == 2000 seconds = 30-45 minutes of you doing nothing but rapid fire copy-swap-deposit dime-lather-rinse-repeat), and they WOULD stop you.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    4. Re:Explain something to me... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      granted, most of the inventory os in printed form, but I can also checkout Video, Laser Disk, DVD, Tapes, etc.. all od which are reasonably easy to duplicate, yet I have not done so. I should never have to be in a postion to prove I didn't commit a crime, only defend my innocence

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. research labs are next? by mmusn · · Score: 2
    I know of at least one major research lab that developed an audio codec because a couple of researchers wanted to put on-line. They ended up putting several thousand CDs on a network server. (The audio codec was spun out as part of a startup, but ultimately failed because MP3 had become too popular.)

    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.

  24. Re:Future Immunity? by Sabalon · · Score: 2

    read the article - it clearly states that it is a settlement to keep the case out of the court, where the RIAA will try to show logs and counts of songs and thusly they should be given $10mil to make up for imaginary lost revenue.

  25. BSA Handbook? by Kraegar · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  26. For the optimists out there by Indras · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:For the optimists out there by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 2

      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.

      Letting more than one person listen to a CD is like being a drunk driver and killing someone? Yeesh. The RIAA would love that analogy.

  27. Re:2 + 2 together.... by glwtta · · Score: 2

    you need to get out more... much more

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  28. let's get this straight by linuxpng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:let's get this straight by glwtta · · Score: 2
      It's a fine - In August 2001, the RIAA asked IIS to stop the practice and the two parties entered talks for a settlement. there is nothing in the article about them resuming the "practice."

      Sounds simple enough, RIAA has judged IIS to be guilty of copyright infirngement and has fined them $1m for it, which is what governmnetal law enforcement agencies, such as RIAA and MPAA, are supposed to do, after all.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:let's get this straight by stubear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The RIAA and MPAA are NOT governmental agencies, they are industry watch groups (RIAA - recording industry, MPAA - motion pictures). Their members comprise those in their respective industries (Sony, Warner Bros., Dreamworks, etc.) The RIAA and MPAA lobby on behalf their members but that is the extent of their governmental connections.

    3. Re:let's get this straight by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      I think he was being sarcastic.

    4. Re:let's get this straight by startled · · Score: 2

      Uh-oh. It appears you've given your audience too much credit again. In the future, you may want to refer to this article, which spells out how to, well, spell it out for an audience not entirely up to the task of catching nuance.

    5. Re:let's get this straight by glwtta · · Score: 2

      Yeah this whole sarcasm thing just doesn't carry over well on /. - I've been affected more than once...

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  29. I wonder how this constitutes "piracy". by mmusn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:I wonder how this constitutes "piracy". by glwtta · · Score: 2
      pay fees based on the number of people present when we play music

      Hey, that's an interesting idea - I wonder how they will accomplish this technologically? I used to think that the ultimate goal was payment every single time some sort of media is played (we are almost there), but this makes more sense - payment for each time a person hears or sees something that "belongs" to them.

      I don't have difficulty envisaging RIAA demanding the "right" to know how many people you have in your house (at any moment), after all it protects copyrights and fights piracy - it's a patriotic kind of thing.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  30. This is huge. by crimoid · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:This is huge. by glwtta · · Score: 2

      And that's the goal right there. If RIAA can effectively eliminate the difference between legal and illegal mp3 and have the entire idea of an mp3 be associated with piracy... well, then we still need to buy CDs and we still need RIAA (which, we don't otherwise, if anyone hasn't noticed). Why try to compete in a new market when you are so well established in the old?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  31. Warner: No Problem, Everybody's Doing It by Merry_B.Buck · · Score: 2

    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.

  32. Re:One word, wow.... by AntiNorm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    They're not. Especially since they're not law enforcement. If the BSA or the RIAA shows up at your door, turn them away. They can't do a damn thing about it without law enforcement present AND a search warrant, which you are entitled to look at (so if the cops do accompany them, simply ask to see the search warrant).

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
  33. Endless stream of the same comments again by WhaDaYaKnow · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  34. Won't the artists be pleased... by F.Prefect · · Score: 2
    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.
    And once Daddy RIAA divides the million bucks up amongst the artists, proportional to the number of their songs on the server....

    Oh, wait.

    --
    --Ford Prefect
  35. Re:One word, wow.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    allowed to come into your business and snoop around for no reason

    Somebody ratting them out clearly provides a reason.

    If this was the governement doing this sort of thing it would be illegal.

    The government is the one issuing the search warrants.

    Everyone here has some form of mp3 repository at their office

    No, they don't. Some companies try to run a clean operation.

  36. Re:Search and seizure / alternate encodings? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

    A copyrighted material by any other means is still copyrighted. The issue here isn't that MP3s aren't illegal (we MUST get this fact straight), but rather the content of the MP3 files are illegal. The song itself is pirated.

    IANAL

    --


    _______________________________
    "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  37. dedicated by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  38. So the bigger question is... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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?

    ...because you know that someone within the company had to tell them. Otherwise the RIAA would have to break in to the corporation to their private servers to even know that.

    Ka-Ching.

    1. Re:So the bigger question is... by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      "Otherwise the RIAA would have to break in to the corporation to their private servers to even know that"

      So what? As long as it's a big corporation or the government, they can do whatever it is they please, be it illegal or not.

  39. $1M dollars can buy alot of CDs by musicmaker · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:$1M dollars can buy alot of CDs by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      >How can they possible justify a settlement of this size.

      It's a punishment. They did something illegal and should be punished. It's the same way that when a person is caught doing insider trading, the SEC fines them an amount greater than what they actually made in the deal as a punishment.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  40. Re:"Settlements" are the problem here by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
    IANAL

    As long as the accused prostrate themselves before the RIAA, fuzzy precedents like this will become as established as any other rule of law


    I think this is wrong. It is only by court ruling can it set legal prescendence. Second of all, what is the point of battling the RIAA if what you are doing is illegal? There is no way that this could be argued out of court. Remember, they are distributing pirated materials [within their employees].
    --


    _______________________________
    "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  41. I wouldn't dispute for a moment... by trudyscousin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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.
  42. this is not such a light shade of grey IMHO by flacco · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is this really a "fair use" case? This goes beyond making a copy for a friend. The guy was taking music and distributing it fairly widely, with unrestricted random-access by a number of people, potentially depriving the copyright holder of sales.

    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.
    1. Re:this is not such a light shade of grey IMHO by stubear · · Score: 2

      Actually making a copy for a friend is NOT fair use. You can only make copies for personal use which means you would have to be with your friend everytime they listened to the copy of the album or song you gave them.

    2. Re:this is not such a light shade of grey IMHO by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Woooh buddy wait a minute..
      with unrestricted random-access by a number of people, potentially depriving the copyright holder of sales.
      When do we start goose-stepping and saluting mine-furer? I dont care what anyone says or thinks, having the ability to do something does NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL or BAD. I have a car that is not controlled by the united Automotive safety council.. so am I a criminal for owning a car that has the potential to break laws and even commit mass murder? all it takes is one motion and with a car or van I can mow down a group of people.... so car owners should be considered murderers?

      right now we need to drag into the streets and beat senseless anyone that mentions that mrerly having an item that could do or allow something is illegal and bad.

      Yes I have a server on the internet.. Maybe i should be fined trillions of dollars because I have the potential to distribute everything to everyone.

      BAH, Time to start forming an angry mob.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:this is not such a light shade of grey IMHO by flacco · · Score: 2
      If you don't agree then find/make an alternative, otherwise give up your PRIVILEGE to use the product/service.

      I have no problem with that, but maybe you can tell me how I can find an alternative if it's ILLEGAL to sell competing hardware without the on-board copy protection?

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  43. RIAA sux0rz by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  44. High speed CD brokerage house by digitect · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...
  45. Hahaha! Reuters has the same problem! by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  46. well suck me sideways! by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    I had better not let my fiancee listen to my CDs anymore, she doesn't have the proper license!

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  47. No... by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

    It's not that different. It's copyright infringement...plain and simple.

  48. The kind of copyright I'd like to see... by Junta · · Score: 2

    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.
  49. could this work? by sluke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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....

  50. Next they'll get a trademark attack from M$... by tcc · · Score: 2

    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.
  51. Disappointing... by NetJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  52. What about the artists? by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  53. Re:Not fair use.... by shyster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    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?

  54. The Job of the RIAA by hendridm · · Score: 2

    > 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.

    1. Re:The Job of the RIAA by Heironymus+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      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?

      the RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. it does not represent artists at all, and never has.

      the recording industry has always worked to expand their share of royalties or licenses. for example, the whole internet radio fight we've been hearing about is based on the RIAA's dissatisfaction with the current arrangements with radio. radio stations pay fees to ASCAP and BMI, but not to the RIAA, because the law did not give them a share of the pie.

      (this is why we saw payola scams on radio; since the RIAA gets no money from airplay, they have to consider it a form of free advertising to convince people to buy their records ... which gives them an incentive to bribe DJs to play their records more than people actually request. however, they would prefer being paid per listen, have fought for just that ... and have won it for web radio.)

      compare that to the various pay-to-listen websites owned by RIAA members... they are fighting with ASCAP and BMI, the true representatives of the artists, because the RIAA claims it would be too difficult to compensate artists on such a new medium as the internet. this, in fact, was reported on slashdot.

      so the short answer to the original question is: not one cent of that million dollars will go to artists, nor were they ever promised it; and further, if it turns out the RIAA every promised anything to artists, they plan to wiggle out of that promise.

  55. Re:NO precendent.. by evilpaul13 · · Score: 2

    because this never went to court.

  56. Re:RIAA by argoff · · Score: 2

    > Well technically, it's copyright infrigment.

    technically they're nothing wrong with copyright infringment. it's not like copyrights are a real property right, or even an incentive contrary to what many would have you believe. pssst... I went 5 mph over the speed limit yesterday and didn't report that one dollar bill I found at the beach yesterday to the IRS --- WOOOOOOW big crimes, big crimes.....

  57. There sure is a market solution... by aquarian · · Score: 2

    ...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.

  58. Re:Not fair use.... by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, all of your examples are considering private. If you charged for admission then you get into the realm of public performance.

    If you set up in Central Park and played a bunch of music on a big rig (something more than just a boombox that someone may overhear) and then show a couple of movies from a projector on a bed sheet, that is a public performance.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. Re:Free the Data! by swordgeek · · Score: 2

    Just one comment: Your fair use policy ain't worth shit. The Various governments and the WTO have agreed to side with the media industry, and will let them fuck you over until you're bleeding from every pore in your body. Then they'll charge you for having the gall to try stopping them. $250,000 fines? Five years in jail? Seems fitting for someone who tried to stop the industry from protecting their "property."

    This isn't future paranoia. This is HERE, NOW!

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  61. Duh-huh, what? by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Blockquoth the poster:

    There is nothing to do with courts or police having to do with this situation. This was an out of court settlement. IIS paid the fine because they agreed to not because they were ordered to.


    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
    1. Re:Duh-huh, what? by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      The reason that the courts are coming down on the RIAA's side is that is what the law says. The courts don't decide what's legal and what's not.

      This view of the legal system is extremely naive ... so much I find hard to believe it's taken seriosuly by anyone. Of course courts interpret the law. Indeed, that is the description of what a court does. "The law" is a universal. Trials are particular. Someone must bridge the gap, and that someone is the judge (or jury, or, usually, both).


      I actually have a lot of respect for the judiciary in general, and I don't think most judges heavy-handedly impose their own ideology on their cases. But they certainly interpret the law according to their best understanding of it and the situation. If not, why would prosecutors (and defense attorneys) fight so hard to try to get the "right" judge for their case? Why do we even have a term for a "hanging judge"?


      If the justices do not believe intellectual output is property, then they will not accord it the common protections of property. If they think of "infringement" as "stealing" (which, by the way, is not stated "in the law"), then they will mete out punishments commensurate with theft. Their understanding of copyright as a balance (or as a grant of property) will guide them in granting or denying motions.


      Courts not interpret the law? That's all they do.

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
  62. Scanned comments, didn't see this question by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Scanned comments, didn't see this question by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      They have the same power as the BSA, which is to say that they have no legal powers. What they do have though is the ability to sue you causing you to spend a good deal of money to defend or you can settle out of court.

      In this case, I think the RIAA did the right thing. They went after the illegal copyrighted files on the network. On the otherhand when they are going after Napster, Kazaa, or whatever.. They have very little case. Napster is a tool, like a gun. And as the NRA often says, "guns don't kill, people do.." blah blah...

      [Disclaimer: I'm not trying to equate guns to napster, but this was just to prove a point]

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  63. Yes - here is a potential work around? Comments? by EMIce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  64. My recollection of ASCAP/BMI from TCOM 304 by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2
    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?

    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?
  65. Re:"Settlements" are the problem here by rhizome · · Score: 2

    That's why I qualified my statement with "fuzzy". Nightclubs which employ DJs are supposed to only pay BMI/ASCAP/etc. fees for "distributing" music to their patrons. It's still a murky area when profits aren't involved.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  66. Re:In other news by EMIce · · Score: 2

    Most schools have a search engine set up independently by students to search the "Network Neighborhood" as Microsoft calls it. Phynd doesn't seem all the useful except for the few schools that don't have this. The administration typically turns a blind eye to the local search engines and the whole file sharing thing, else they'd be liable. On a couple occasions I talked to the IT lawyer for a big 10 school and he said the best policy is not to look. This is the same thing scour.net did for years but at a local level, and I don't see any precedent for liability in running such server. If your school doesn't have such a server, download femfind and install it on your Linux box, you'll make lots of students very happy.

    I do find it odd that scour.net never got sued, they were effectively doing the same thing napster did, without centralized authentication and without their own peer to peer client.They were right in the middle of the fuzzy line, knowing users were searching their database for pirated material, but allowing Microsoft networking to do the actual hosting. They didn't encourage sharing of pirated files. So is it illegal to randomomly go out and index every computer's shared files, even if most of the shared files are pirated and the dominant queries are for pirated files?

  67. Seems reasonable to me by bstrahm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Seems reasonable to me by Tazzy531 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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..."
    2. Re:Seems reasonable to me by bstrahm · · Score: 2

      I didn't say what I thought would pass legal muster, of course if you are suing you go after the person with the larger pockets (ie the company) rather than the person that is 10K in debt with no free cash flow.

      That said, I still don't think the company should be held liable for content that it didn't authorize and is against company policy...

      The lawyers always get their cut... A small town has one very poor lawyer, another lawyer comes into town and he is now rich...

    3. Re:Seems reasonable to me by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
      That said, I still don't think the company should be held liable for content that it didn't authorize and is against company policy...


      If you read the links on my parent post, Company Policies are the only things that can prevent a company from being targetted. If an employee acted against the policy, then they are considered a rogue employee and the company is responsible for punishing them and the target of the lawsuit goes to the employee. However, in this case, it didn't seem like there was a company policy to ban MP3s
      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  68. More bad news... by shr3k · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  69. Re:Not fair use.... by Chops · · Score: 2

    Ah yes, The Drawing of the Line. "This 'day' you speak of, at what second does it turn into 'night' exactly?"

  70. Re:Free the Data! by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

    If that's the case...aren't software just data also? So in other words, you are saying that it should be legal to pirate software also.

    How far does it go? How bout movies? Data? Pirate that too. Your credit card number...data...hand it over. etc..etc..etc..

    My point is this. The RIAA isn't going after the MP3 standard or any data standard, but rather the actual music itself. That is a person's piece of art and you have made an illegal copy of it.

    --


    _______________________________
    "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  71. Libraries anyone? by Ogerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  72. from guess who's web site... by xFoz · · Score: 2

    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.

  73. Try a real company by jonbrewer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  74. Re:Not fair use.... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No business benefit is gained by the playing (restaurants, etc.)

    Restaurants pay. They pay even if they have only a television. When I owned a bar the ASCAP boys came in and handed me a bill with itemized charges for live performances, the CD player, and the televisions. I felt like I was being shaken down by the mafia.

  75. Re:Not fair use.... by shyster · · Score: 2
    Ah yes, The Drawing of the Line. "This 'day' you speak of, at what second does it turn into 'night' exactly?"

    Well, that's easy. It becomes night at sunset, of course. Or, as dictionary.com puts it, "the period between sunset and sunrise, especially the hours of darkness."

    When's sunset? Well, that depends on your locale and the time of year...it's a bit complicated to figure out in your head, so there is a bit of fudging for the sake of convenience. But, for the real answer, the US Naval Observatory can help you out on it.

  76. Re:What about a jukebox? by gvonk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think local diner with CD jukebox system.

    Yeah, in the US, if you are a bar or restaurant with a jukebox, you have to do the ASCAP/BMI license thing but the upshot is that you can also legally play music over your PA in the restaurant, have a cover band play other bands' songs, etc. The licensing organizations do a survey at certain intervals to determine average usage of the jukebox and charge royalties based on that.

    --


    El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
  77. This must be why by 1%warren · · Score: 2

    "/super-secret-mp3-directory" has dissappeared off a certan debian mirror today....

    --

    Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
  78. Piracy? Arrrgh! by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Piracy is when you take music that didn't belong to you (or your immediate family).

    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.
    1. Re:Piracy? Arrrgh! by jonr · · Score: 2

      Oh the humanity, I just lost my moderator access... You surely deserve some points!

  79. This is a great question by VValdo · · Score: 2

    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.
  80. Re:Not fair use.... by ErfC · · Score: 2
    So, if I play my CD's at a party I throw at my house, does the RIAA expect me to compensate for that?

    Well, yes. At the moment I don't think they can force you to do so, but they'd sure like to. In their world, you'd pay per play and per ear. And they're working on it.

    --

    -Erf C.
    Cthulu always calls collect...

  81. Radios are policed by xixax · · Score: 3, Funny
    Over here in Australia, you must pay a licence fee to APRA if you have a radio playing in your store.

    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"
  82. What the article doesn't say.... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    Were these songs burned to CD's and taken home?

    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.

  83. ...or was this the cheap way out for IISX? by KMSelf · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to this Dow Jones article, IISX "incurred negative cash flow from operations for each of the three years ended Dec. 31, 2001, and had an accumulated deficit of $76.8 million through Dec. 31", and "might not continue as a going concern". Given the option between settling a $1m suit (which may be paid out at pennies on the dollar in a bankrupcy or liquidation settlement) vs. paying current cash for an extended legal defense, this may have been the easy way out. I suspect more to this story than meets the eye.

    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?

  84. In the UK by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 :-)

  85. Noisy neighbors downstairs by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  86. muhahahaha by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 2

    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
  87. Re:NO precendent.. by Geek+In+Training · · Score: 2

    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 .sig, someone WILL complai
  88. Bury Them in Requests by NightMgr · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  89. How is this NOT stealing? by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2

    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'
    1. Re:How is this NOT stealing? by kindbud · · Score: 2

      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?

      You don't have to worry about that. Because you're such a lamer and a snitch, no one would give you access to it in the first place, so you'd never have the opportunity.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:How is this NOT stealing? by tjgrant · · Score: 2

      If I take music to work that I own it's not stealing. If I happen to listen to my coworkers music at work, that's not stealing either. If, however, I then burn a CD of my co-workers music and take it home, that would be stealing.

      So yes, it could fall under fair use to have an MP3 repository at work.

      --

      Stand Fast,
      tjg.

  90. Copyright is supposed to serve the public good by geoswan · · Score: 2
    Last year slashdot interviewed two of the leaders of project gutenberg and Gnupedia. The project Gutenberg guy had a lot interesting things to say about copyright. One thing he said is that librarians tell him that approximately half of the books they buy go out of print within five years.

    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.

  91. I Smell a Rat by die_jack_die · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the RIAA's press release:

    In August 2001, the RIAA sent IIS a letter asking that they immediately cease and desist from this practice and notified them that they could face legal and monetary penalties. Soon after, IIS entered into negotiations with the RIAA and agreed to settle the case out of court for $1 million.

    Everything about this sounds fishy:

    1. RIAA asked IIS to cease and desist. They didn't show up with sherrif's deputies to confiscate the equipment, they just sent a goddamn letter.
    2. If IIS had wanted to make a case of this, we (Slashdot) would have heard something about it. But they didn't, we didn't, and it seems logical to conclude IIS just shut down the server. No big deal.
    3. All of a sudden after all this is done there's a giant lawsuit?

    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...

  92. ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI by yerricde · · Score: 2

    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?
  93. Re:Not fair use.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well if you are in the UK and you and 8 friends listen to music with "repetitive beats" then you can all be locked up anyway under legislation designed to stop illegal raves.

  94. MS DRM says use analog by yerricde · · Score: 2

    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?
  95. Spanish lesson by swillden · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Spanish lesson by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Cujones is a common alternate spelling; don't know how "acceptable" it is in proper Spanish.

      ["large boxes" .. LOL!!]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Spanish lesson by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Ironically, around here (just north of Los Angeles) one hears "huevos" (eggs) as the euphemism for "testicles" more often than any variant of cujones. When the latter is heard, it's pronounced more like "cujones" than like "cojones". Might be a regionalism, who knows.

      Do we win the most-off-topic award yet? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  96. What about the artists? by Webmoth · · Score: 2

    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.
  97. Would this be illegal too? by mvdwege · · Score: 2

    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'?
  98. can I just say... by cbare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fuck the RIAA. Give money to the EFF.

    --
    -cbare
  99. Re:missing the point?? by maraist · · Score: 2

    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
  100. Desparate by crazyj · · Score: 2

    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?

  101. Re:Yeah, Really.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

    That depends on the business. If you were Loki Software, $1M would have meant a lot of payroll. It could easily screw up or sink a small/medium sized company.

  102. Re:Not fair use.... by ameoba · · Score: 2

    What if you're throwing a massive "need to pay rent"-style house party with a couple of kegs and you're charging $X for a keg-cup at the door, and between your friends band and your other friend's little brother (who, agreed to play for free 'cuz he thinks that he might get laid for being in a band) playing, you throw some music in the stereo.

    Were you charging for admission, or just charging for the beer?

    Few of the bars I frequent ever charge a cover, they simply charge inflated prices for beverages to cover their expenses, yet they're expected to give somebody a royalty check if they play music.

    Where is the line to be drawn? Would the bar still be 'public' if the owner knew everyone by name? Is the houseparty still private, even if you've never seen 90% of the people there?

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  103. In other news, RIAA hopes to ban non-RIAA works by Webmoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.