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?"

6 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me by jlechem · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. Like this is going to stop them... by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's face it: streaming music is nice (and better for the record labels), but it's not the only way to hear it for free.

    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.
    1. Re:Like this is going to stop them... by pvt_medic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed, the last thing anyone should want is a bunch of MIT students upset with you. I mean why dont you think they dont crack down on the drinking problem there. It keeps the students happy. Besides when the RIAA shut down Napster how many alternatives sprung up to replace it. Music sharing is the new generation. With the demise of one system, will only spawn new ones. The key is the RIAA needs to embrace technology or they will be washed away from the wave of change.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
  3. RIAA vs MIT by Davak · · Score: 5, Insightful
    RIAA sees this as a direct attack against them. This is a counterstrike:
    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."

    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.
  4. innovate! put the robberbarons out of their misery by ftide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  5. forget the loopholes by bonds · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We don't need newer and more creative ways to sidestep our poorly conceived IP laws, we need new laws.

    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.