Legalities of a Company Sponsored MP3 Repository?

An anonymous reader asks: "At our company numerous people store MP3s on their local hard drives. Because we don't allow MP3's through email, and peer-to-peer file sharing programs, practically all of the MP3s are ripped from CD in the office. What is the liability for the company if it were to allow employees to place all ripped MP3s in a central location, that any employee could access? There would be practically no way to distribute the MP3s outside of the company, and it seems that this would be a legitimate practice that shouldn't open the company to liability (equivalent to providing the CD to a coworker). I'm wondering because I'd like to use this as a morale-booster at our company. I'm worried about the company being liable in some way as it would be company-supported. Does anyone have any feedback or experience with this?"

Comments

After extensive research...

[GeorgeH]

I think that this article answers your question pretty well. $1 million is a pretty hefty fee just to centralize your mp3s. See also this and this. Also, I understand that there may or may be things on the Internet outside the domain ".slashdot.org" but I have yet to verify these claims.

(note: you can find all these articles by typing "RIAA" into the search box at the bottom of this page)

Re:Sorry

[Copperhead]

Actually, you may still get the RIAA slapping you for playing your music for more than one person. They could expect you to pay fees as it is a "performance of copyrighted works.

Here is the testimony of the head of the National Restaurant Association before the House Judiciary Committee complaining about the practice.

Re:It is all fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting someone else copy your MP3's is NOT legal, money or no money. This idea has been repeated so often it's almost reached the status of urban legend. It's completely wrong. Selling pirated music is more illegal, but giving it away is still illegal.

Read title 17 yourself, you fucking moron. Or, even better, since you're clearly too much of a simpleton to understand the law as it's written, read this page instead. Especially this part:

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

See? Personal copying is fine, but as soon as you give your copy away it's not personal any more, and it's against the law.

Fucking moron.

Re:Read what you said

[Anonymous Coward]

It says nothing about not being able to give away your copy.

WHAT? I knew you were too stupid to read and understand the law, but I didn't realize you're too stupid to read and understand a second-grade-reading-level explanation of the law, too.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COPY COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS. At all. Period. Under any circumstances. EXCEPT for those particular classes of use which are defined by the statutes to be non-infringing. Making a copy of your own CD, which you purchased fair-and-square, to listen to on your iPod is non-infringing. It's fair use. Giving that copy away is NOT covered by fair use. It is, thereforce, infringing, and not allowed.

Don't you get it, moron? The presumption in copyright law is that copying is NOT allowed, unless it's covered by one of the exceptions EXPLICITLY listed in the statute. Giving away copies of music is NOT covered by any of the exceptions, and in fact is EXPLICITLY listed as being an infringing act.

God, what fools these mortals be.