Slashdot Mirror
Internal MP3 Server? 1 Million Dollars Please
nkruse pointed out that our pals as the RIAA are breaking new ground. According to this Reuters Article, the RIAA has succeeded in collecting 1 million US dollars from Arizona based Integrated Information Systems. IIS apparently had a corporate MP3 repository on it's network. This is the first time I've heard about the RIAA doing this kind of thing. Looks like they're taking a page from the BSA handbook.
Another perfect example of the record labels just wanting to suck more money out of us. If we brought our original CD's in, stuck them in a CD tower, and played them at work, that'd be legal, but using something slightly more advanced to store the music (like MP3 files) is considered illegal....
One of these days, the record companies are going to find themselves out of a job - artists will realise how useless the labels actually are, recording equipment will become too cheap for the record companies to justify their (huge) slice of the revenue, and we will finally see the end of this rubbish.
I guess these Universities are going to be next...
t m
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.h
"""
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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....
If you were born with the unfortunate ability to hear sounds and thus music, you should.. no YOU MUST pay the record labels.
During your life you might accidentally overhear music that you haven't paid for and thus rip off "the artists".
Thus, the TAX will be an innitial fee on birth, based on your preliminary hearing tests. If found to have the ability to hear, you will be charged the TAX as an annual % of your income. Should you have no income within the first 10 years of your life, the record labels will render your hearing useless to stop your criminal activities...
This should address all those MP3 and other music piracy problems at the source..
I checked through my Boy Scouts of America handbook thoroughly, and I can't find anything in it about the RIAA or MP3's. Odd.
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.
So who was the employee that got so ticked off at the company that he ratted out his employer to the RIAA? Is there a bounty now on piracy?
Ka-Ching.
I'm rather disappointed in the postings on this....even from Slashdot. Assuming the article is correct, and I know that's a big assumption, this company basically sponsored piracy. They paid for a server specifically for music sharing. That's a "bad thing". There is a very big difference between someone bringing in MP3s and a company sponsoring the sharing of them. The company puts itself at VERY large risk for such things. I'm a network admin at a medium sized company and I don't even allow Gnutella/Napster/Kazaa clients to run...at all.
This isn't fair use. They didn't let a friend borrow the CD. They ripped the CD and put the files on a server for everyone to get. Fair use may have a case should there have been software on the software to let a user "check out" a song and while it was checked out, no one else could access it. But I really don't think that was the case, do you?
I've known companies that had MP3 servers, but they were always known by the users. They weren't ever really recognized by management. I bet many of those go away tomorrow morning when word of this gets out.
So, if I play my CD's at a party I throw at my house, does the RIAA expect me to compensate for that? How about if a friend is in my car, and we listen to my CD's, is that a public performance? How about if 8 friends are in my Suburban?
Or maybe I go out to the pool with my boombox and throw on a CD. Do the other pool-goers constitute the public? Do I now need to wear headphones to avoid licensing fees?
When I invite a friend over to watch a movie, do I have to buy a copy of the movie for each visitor? Do I need to obtain permission from the MPAA before watching a movie with friends? How about with my cats? They like to watch tv as well, you know.
Sure, you could argue that all these are indeed a public performance. Of course, my argument would be that were the RIAA/MPAA/etc. to try and enforce any of them, they would be (a)laughed out of court, and (b)bankrupt and pennyless in a matter of weeks. Why should this case be that different?
I see. The threat of a long costly litigation, with a decent chance of losing and having to pay even more exorbiant court-ordered fines -- a threat backed up by the judicial power of the United States -- had absolutely nothing to do with IIS' decision to settle? Ah, the scales fell from their eyes; they saw the error of their ways; and they gratefully shelled out $1M as a voluntary penace along with the admonition to go and sin no more? All on their own, in a conversion experience that might as well have happened on the road to Damascus?
Just how is the weather on your planet, anyway?
If the courts were not enthusiastically subscribing to the RIAA's view of reality, then the RIAA would not have the giant bludgeon they currently wield. Coypright infringement is a matter of law; it is settled in the courts, ultimately; and any out-of-court settlement certainly derives from the potential mediation of the courts. The legal climate is the prime mover here, too, even if the formal process isn't followed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I believe you are wrong on your analysis. IANAL. There was a ruling within the last couple of years saying that the employer is responsible for all things on the network.
For example, if an employee were to forward around a racist joke. [Let's just say for this scenario it's about Green People]. A employee that is offended by the joke doesn't sue the people that is forwarding it, but rather the employer for creating a "unsafe" [I know that's not the right term..but there's another legal term] condition in the workplace. [Check Here for Other Related Situations]
Scenario 2: If an employee installs a piece of software that the employer doesn't own the license to, the person that is responsible is the employer even if he is not aware of it. [Read More Here]
Scenario 3: If a hacker sets up a warez site on one of your server, you are not technically liable, but the FBI can come in with an warrant and confiscate the server without giving you an opportunity backup all the data that you need from that server. [Operation Bandwidth]
Basically my point is this, the employer is ultimately responsible for all employees and equipment onsite. 1) If they are taking IP claims to all the work that you do on the office computers, they should also be liable for all the bad things that you do. 2) Ultimately, the employer owns all the equipment and must be actively enforcing the rules.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."