Slashdot Mirror
MIT's Music Net Shut Down Over License Issues
aurum42 writes "MIT's LAMP music-over-cable initiative has been shut down due to licensing concerns, as reported on The Boston Globe. Ars Technica has a good summary of the story. It appears that Loudeye did not have the rights to sell music to MIT for distribution over cable, although they apparently assured MIT that they did in fact have those rights. Murky, unexplored legal quagmire or RIAA influenced revisionism?"
Does MIT have a case to sue Loudeye? Seems Loudeye misrepresented themselves. It may be better/easier if MIT simply works in partnership with an organization that does has a lot of agreements with the music industry already, like Apple or such. Maybe an MIT branded iTunes?
or doesn't MIT usually let these kinds of things go. I mean come on they're the College who have a subdomain called fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu. I really hope the RIAA hasn't managed to actually influence them in any way.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
How to now get free music? There are more than enough geeky MIT students to find a solution to the problem. MIT-only file sharing? Passing around burned copies of CDs? Having everyone switch to using Kazaa? All I know is that something new will show up sooner or later to replace LAMP.
Taking away music from college students won't do anything but make them mad. If this was the RIAA's doing, they've just screwed themselves. Dealing with a few bitter music fans is bad enough; a college campus full could be their undoing...
Goo goo g'joob.
The RIAA here is directly charging MIT with trying to break copyright. There are not suggesting that MIT made a mistake... or that Loudeye misrepresented itself.
The RIAA is trying to make an example out of MIT.
This is the same kind of crap that RIAA pulled on MP3.Com! Legally, I can buy a CD with music on it. Legally, I can encode a CD to MP3s and put them on my hard drive. Legally I can upload my MP3s from my hard drive to my remote server to listen to them at work, etc. I could probably even legally mail my CD to someone and hire them to encode it for me.
But just because MP3.Com took it one logical step further and encoded their copy of your CD to elimiate shipping costs, they were found guilty of copyright infringement.
Here we have an MIT setup where if they bought a bunch of CDs and hired a bunch of students to encode them it's legal, but if they just buy the already encoded songs, it's illegal. This kind of legal hair-splitting is such crap.
I don't know if this is a situation where people need to grow some balls and actually stand up to these kind of logical quagmires or a case where courts are idiotic enough to buy such arguments. And while we are on the subject, it's worth pointing out that if I distribute music over coaxial cable I'm apparently fine but if I distribute over twisted pair, I'm aching for a lawsuit.
And MPAA and RIAA wonder why people don't respect the laws about copyright...
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
"Murky, unexplored legal quagmire or RIAA influenced revisionism?"
No, this isn't a quagmire. It isn't unexplored legal territory. We've been reading about this for years. The lawyers have been interpreting and representing for existing laws surprisingly well. Pro bonos and non-sell outs are getting ready to form new rules that take many of the old rules into account. Competitive, P2P type music industry is just around the corner. Everyone wants it. The RIAA will apply maximum litigation wherever they think copyrights are being infringed. The RIAA hawks have done just about all the revising they can.
Why did they shut down M.I.T.? It's a small group of supply-side elitists, aristocrats (bourgeoisie) and government oligarchs who don't want things to change. TOO BAD. The methods of delivering music mainstream are changing and for the better. This is a temporary setback and students, programmers, hackers etc. will find legitimate, copyright-compatible ways to deliver music sooner or later.
It's just a campus CCTV channel with network-controlled programming. My school has been doing this for years, I'm confident that many schools have this configuration.
If they hadn't hyped this up as some kind of RIAA work-around, it'd still be running.
Also, when you're a campus radio or television station, you shouldn't have to buy your music. You should receive it in the mail for free, and for the purpose of broadcasting.
How dare they step on RIAA turf? Avoiding paying artists and union musicians has always been the job of the RIAA member labels!
If the company they licensed the 30k worth of music from didn't have the rights to license it under these terms, then that's hardly MIT's fault.
I for one would be grateful if places with clout, like MIT, would spend their resources advocating for better policy rather than engaging in legal contortions. If MIT, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Princeton, Yale, NYU, etc. threw *serious* support behind good policy (like the Eldred act, IMHO), the RIAA would find it much harder to have their way with congress. Admittedly, uniting these institutions of intellectual debate is much easier said than done, but they are uniquely equipped to put forth balanced proposals that address a broader social agenda than would ever emerge from an industry lobby. We could really use someone with the clout, resources, intelligence and neutrality of MIT to help write (and right) the rules of the game that are fair to *all* the stakeholders, not just the RIAA.
What we are finding is that leaving the fox (the RIAA) to guard the hen-house (IP policy) is great for the fox and bad for everyone else.
If you read the press release from Loudeye it's clear that they knew exactly what MIT intended to do with their $30,000 purchase. Hell, Loudeye claims they are the only company authorized to arrange this type of licensing scheme for MIT. How can they turn around and claim now that MIT didn't ask them for the right kind of licenses? What, did Loudeye just forget to tell MIT about the problem? What did Loudeye's execs. expect would happen?
But you've really got to love the quote from Vivendi;
Kelly Mullens, a spokeswoman for Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, said, "It is unfortunate that MIT launched a service in an attempt to avoid paying recording artists, union musicians and record labels. Loudeye recognized that they had no right to deliver Universal's music to the MIT service, and MIT acted responsibly by removing the music."
Now let me see if I understand this: I design a legal music service for college students. I contact a company that tells me they have music rights for sale, I buy them for $30,000 and then I start the service. But, less than a week later, a music label calls me on the carpet, claiming I 'avoided paying music artists, union musicians and record labels'? What was the $30,000 to Loudeye for then, if not a payment on behalf of recording artists, union musicians and recording labels? Did Vivendi not get their cut, miss the memo, what?
It's beyond me why the music industry would want to shut down the LAMP service. I mean, as I understand it, it's more like a radio station than an MP3 download tool like Napster or Kazaa. Does this mean that the labels don't want college kids listening to music legally? Did radio-like venues become taboo or something while I slept? This debacle is sure to send one message clearly to students across the US - there is no way to stay legally compliant with the RIAA and still listen to music. Now, what's that message likely to encourage?