Slashdot Mirror
Legal Music Sharing Returns To MIT
An anonymous reader writes "Two MIT students relaunched MIT's believed-legal music sharing network today, using a Linux-based consumer audio device that also launches today as a commercial product. The 'Library Access to Music Project' (LAMP) system was first launched a year ago, but shut down after its content supplier encountered legal hurdles. The re-incarnated LAMP is based on StreetFire Sound's RBX1600, which network-enables multiple inexpensive consumer audio jukeboxes. So... what do you think? Does the new version look legal?"
... if it's legal or not? They'll still get mugged by the lawyers. Legality has little to do with issues like this anymore.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Whoever came up with this idea is clever. But, he/she similarly totally misunderstands the point of copyright laws by playing "bright lining" games (as do, in my experience, many slashdot readers).
(the term "bright lining" means doing some activity with a full knowledge of where the law or regulation is and doing something right up to this regulation, this living up to the letter of the law, though, the implication is, not the spirit.)
Copyright is a socially constructed concept. Basically, copyrightholders are entitled to a monopoly of sorts for a limited time on their work. most people agree that the primary reason for this is to encourage more creation of works.
When people talk in terms of "it's legally okay to copy a song from the radio" or "it's legally okay to copy three pages, but not the whole book", then they are basically referring to PRAGMATIC copyright interpreations and rulings based on past technological and social circumstance. as technology and social circumstance change, it may become necessary to change (usually tighten) what is allowed in order to best preserve the spirit and intention of copyright, which, again, is to encourage authors.
here's a really obvious sign of when the spirit of copyright is broken--i call it the "extrapolation" argument. basically, somebody takes an existing interpretation and tries to "scale it up":
-sharing music with your kid sister is ok, so sharing music with everybody's kid sister is (Napster)
-photocopying one page is ok, so let's set up a distributed system via amazon's new full-text thing by which everybody downloads one page and somehow they are combined again (slashdot/amazon)
-MIT has a blanket license for analog music / copying music from existing analog sources of music is ok (radio - unscheduled recordings, includes ads, not complete songs), so let's play a clever trick by which people can get whatever they want in a high quality, but analog format (MIT)
All three of these will work, in the short term. And all three will generate stricter interpretations and a clamp-down, because they are so clearly against the spirit of the socially beneficial copyright law (oh, shut up already, completely-anti-copyright anarcho-libertarians - go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely). The end result of this will be stricted interpretations and more bitching and whining on slashdot. What is the root cause of this? The evil RIAA and MPAA? Yes, they occasionally go overboard (the mickey mouse extension act is pretty egregious), but generally they are in the right.
The root cause is those who think that they're being clever by bright-lining copyright interpretations without realizing that they are interpretations that are subject to reasonable modification as circumstances warrant, not god-given cast-in-stone truths. or, in other words, more technological sense than social understanding.
... but the law doesn't seem to matter that much in this case. It's just like getting a cd player (or a bunch) and extending the headphone wire all the way to your friend's house (or houses) right? That's not illegal is it?
The full article clearly stated that MIT *HAS* a license:
LAMP distributes music in analog form, over MIT's cable TV network, which enables it to be covered by licenses MIT already has with copyright clearinghouses such as BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, in much the same way that the campus radio station is covered.
This means that they pay 2 cents or whatever for each song played. The RIAA *is* getting their money. Everything appears to be legal since its an analogue broadcast over the cable network at MIT. It basically is a radio station using wires instead of wireless.
Since they have a contract, why is this even a question? Why are so many people already claiming that its bordreline or the RIAA will sue even if its legal. The RIAA doesnt go after radio stations, yes they pay to play the music, but they dont do it. Why would they because MIT is doing it on their TV network rather than via RF?
I am ow wondering how many people read the articles before posting replies to /.
All fine words, but MIT licensed it and paid for exactly that: Analogue streams played from CDs to their students, so its not a copyright issue.
No-one, other than you, is claiming that their contract requires "Adverts", "Incomplete songs" & "Unscheduled recordings", "degraded analogue" or any other such condition.
It will just make them crack down on existing privileges. For example:
"LAMP distributes music in analog form, over MIT's cable TV network, which enables it to be covered by licenses MIT already has with copyright clearinghouses such as BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, in much the same way that the campus radio station is covered."
Bye-bye to the permissve "licenses MIT already has with copyright clearinghouses". Nice knowin' ya.
Not to mention:
"Copyright restrictions on analog distribution systems are more permissive than those on digital systems, because the lossy nature of analog-to-digital conversion prevents perfect copies from being made."
So long "permissive analog distributions", you're now marked for death also.
This whole MIT thing is a perfect example of the "lalala, I'm not touching you!" approach to the existing laws. These MIT folks are working up to the letter of the law, but raping its spirit. Maybe the laws are too vague, but stunts like this will surely rectify that...
I don't like the RIAA either but just because you don't like them doesn't give you a reason to steal music.
Is it OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family? Should it then be OK to steal music to entertain my boring family?
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
-Suck
..a technological method to easily make a copy of my loaf of bread, so that you could have one and I would still have mine, sure, go ahead and make a copy of my bread--I would still have mine then, it wouldn't have been stolen.
The "industry" has enthusiastically embraced copying technology-for themselves. They get to "sell" over and over again the same thing. No additional work required. They want to have an exclusive lock on not only content, but on your use of advancing technology. They lobbied and got passed laws that give them an even longer copyright period then what we had before, for no reason other than to continue selling the same content.
In the rest of the world, more money has to come from more work, with the copyright monopolists they want to work once, profit forever and ever and a day and a night and another day. Actually, it's worse than that, the non producers in the copyright monopoly world are the ones making most of the profit, they even screw their own actual content producers most of the time.
They are wickedly over paid middleman skimmers basically, who want to keep a lock on technological and societal progress. We arer at the point now where it is no longer necessary to even have these middleman industries for the most part, they see that, technology has made that rerality, so in order to hang onto their cash cow which has been highly lucrative for them in the past, they seek to further advance the laws only in their favor, no one else, either the actual content providers, nor the various end users, is really well survived by their actions any longer. Back when it took a huge amount of money and machines and expertise to make primitive copies-yes, they served a useful purpose and needed to be *fairly* compensated, but what happened is that while the cost of copying was dropping and the ease of copying was increasing, they kept insisting on the same or even more money for their service. They colluded to create and maintain what is called an industrial cartel, in the process several times running afoul of the law themselves. They did what cartels do, lobby to change the laws in their favor, and they kept on doing their illegal manipulations right along, just assuming (rightly so) that they could bear the cost of getting busted for illegalities as just a part of doing business, being corporations and organizxations, they have always had little to fear of actual human jail time.
In essence, they are just getting a little righteous payback. They know there is little left that reflects the necessity of most of their business existence. they seek to maintain their presence *despite* this. It is contentious now because we reached the obviousness of this, millions daily simply ignore the old paradigm of allowing them to maintain their monopoly on technology. IF they had evolved right along with technology and had continually dropped their prices to a fairer level and had made the obvious advantages of more modern technology equally available to their consumers, I doubt that people would have shoved back in their face as much.
This transition period is liable to continue for a while now, but inevitably they will have to concede that times have changed with their older business model. Those of them that do accept that *now* and evolve will prosper.
"Is it OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family? "
MIT bought and paid for its license, is fully within its license and is not doing anything outside the scope of what its paid for.
Is it OK for my family to eat the bread I bought?
1. She doesn't own the CDs in question and can't claim Fair Use
2. She doesn't have permission from the copyright holders to make copies
Now what *I* want to know is:
If I own a game (like SSX 3 or DDR) that has a soundtrack, but I don't have the means to rip the tunes myself under Fair Use, how does my downloading the tracks from someone else fit into Fair Use/Copyright/DMCA?
And yes, I understand the person distributing the tracks to me is almost certainly in violation, even if I do have a clear right to receive...
GTRacer
- Needs a DVD burner...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I think the question was always the extent of coverage their existing broadcast licenses gave them and how those licenses were to be interpreted in the light of digital vs. analog and wired vs. wireless transmissions.
Fair use is most often brought up with respect to my rights to do what I want with stuff that I buy within the boundaries of my own home, like format shift to use my favorite devices. No, "fair use" is not a cast-in-stone definition, and it's very weakly protected. We all know that perfectly well be now. But some of us believe that all "use" of copyrighted materials that does not involve redistribution should not fall under copyright legislation at all, and thus should be "unregulated" use. Do we always have to agree with current legislative or jurisprudential standards? And are we idiots if we think the courts and lawyers have mucked things up over the last few years over pure FUD spread by parts of the content industry?
I want a plasma tv from the back of a semi truck for $50 too. There would be great demand for that. Wouldn't make it right or legal though.
Exactly. The RIAA and MPAA really care about money. Consider this, if they were not "losing millions in sales" would they give a hoot about filesharing? No. They would not. They do favour the slippery slope fallacy and they use whatever tools they can to get the powers that be to do whatever benefits the RIAA/MPAA members the most.
In essence, they are like M$. They want $ and that's all they care about.
MUSIC 140 at UW explains the history of music and how poorly artists are paid for THEIR work. There are so many hands grabbing and every hand wants more and more money with each grab.
Once these companies realized how much money can be made by selling records they went crazy. Now these companies poorly pay the artists and take advantage of the consumers.
It has been said before, many times, that what they fear most is losing control. Don't for a second think they won't go down fighting tooth and nail. They will attack the common folk, those who can't afford Johnny Cochrane for a lawyer because they know the rest of the common folk will be scared into listening. Obviously the common folk outnumber everyone else by massive numbers, so keeping them under control means more $$ for RIAA/MPAA companies.
It is illegal what most do by copying and sharing. It says it right on the bloody packages. These companies have a point. The problem is that what they do is not really illegal. They get away with a lot because they can.
They also know there is no way to organize the consumers to stop purchasing media from RIAA/MPAA companies. Boycott would be the only way, and even then, these companies will find another way around. They are run by rich people who want to remain rich and will stop at abosolutely nothing to prevent from going poor.
Note how they never attack a person with money? There was one person that I heard of who actually had enough money to hire a lawyer to fight back against the RIAA/MPAA. There's just too few of those people. They need to be set up. Have common folk with "unknown" rich supporters. Then the lawsuits should stop or dwindle from long court battles. If I had the funds I would attack them. First attack is reveal the truth about their "declining record sales" by obtaining TRUE records and proving they are full of it. Second step is make it known to the masses just where the money goes. The rest can be decided once the first two steps are complete.
I am anti-RIAA/MPAA but only because of how they treat artists and consumers and then chastise downloaders and filesharers for being unethical.