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?"
Do they have an SCO license for their linux :-)
Notwithstanding the rather unfortunate name this project has a serious potential.
"Does the new version look legal?"
Of course it looks legal, but is it enough to avoid lawsuits? Very unlikely. MIT is the very place where the hacker culture were born, so obviously it is the first place for RIAA to keep an eye on.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
... 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.
The core issue is not if this is legal under current legislation or not.
The core issue is how long we will have to wait until supply meets demand. There is a demand for technology like this, but thr RIAA and its peers realize stuff like this empowers consumers... thus they feel threatened.
This will ultimately be legal, regardless of wether it is now. One only has to wonder how much tax money (in god knows how many nations) will have to be spent on pointless lawsuits until we, the consumers, can finally get what we want at a reasonable price.
.: Max Romantschuk
... 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?
In the faq of the LAMP site it says : "* Is this really legal? How? We are transmitting music over the non-digital portion of MIT's internal cable television system. Because it is impossible to record exact copies of CDs from a non-digital cable television system, under the copyright law the licensing requirements are less stringent than for over the Internet: similar to the requirements for radio stations." So since when were MP3s transferred over the internet exact copies of the CDs? I appreciate that LAMP have bulk-licenses, but a while back an idea for p2p sharers and peercasters to get radio-licenses was not accepted (by the p2p communities and advocates) as legal, so what's the difference?
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...
``go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely''
Can you link to some examples? I actually believe that the system could work full well without IP laws. If you want innovation and creativity, you can sponsor them by other means. I would like to see the evidence to the contrary you appear to know about, so I can revise my views.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"Winstein's conclusion was based on the high expense of CD jukeboxes with computer interfaces, because at that time, no solution existed for gluing inexpensive consumer audio jukeboxes to computers -- a situation that changed with the advent of the StreetFire Sound RBX1600."
Guess they never heard of the Slink-e, which has been around for more than 6 years. In fact, it's so old it was just discontinued a couple months ago!
http://www.nirvis.com/slink-e.htm
Sure, it doesn't handle the audio side, but that's pretty trivial to do.
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
"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?
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?
Something which occurs to me:
If I buy a CD, I have the right ("first sale") to sell it again, or give it away. [provided that I don't keep a copy] I also have several hundred discs, but I can only listen to one at a time.
How about a system for buying and selling discs in realtime? Two questions need to be addressed:
1)If I physically destroy the original CD, am I allowed to sell the backup? Does this apply to an electronic copy if, as soon as I pass it on, I destroy my original?
2)In order to save bandwidth, is it necessary to destroy the orignal, or is it sufficient to render it unplayable? Obviously, I'd want to re-purchase it at some time, and a 650MB download is a pain. Would some form of cryptographic token suffice?
As far as I can tell, such a system would work effectively if everyone has at least say 10 CDs that they own at any time, so that the requested track would almost always be available from someone. I know it would be legal if I were to pass on the physical disc, but that requires a personal meeting. Is it possible to automate this?
we were assuming for the discussion it was my loaf of bread that was created by me in the first place, then wondering how I would feel if it was "stolen", either the process or the actual loaf. Me personally, if you can copy the bread and leave my bread intact, go for it,please do, I encourage you to feed yourself and your family easier, I'll do something else with my time, I have no interest in ripping you off for a cheap or free copy. Never have, never will, just my nature. I can always think up something new to do. For people who can't, well, too bad, not my lookout if they have zero imagination or any drive to do something new with their time, either as a hobby or as a job. I don't believe in getting paid over and over again and over and over for the same work. I think it's counter productive for society in the long run and stifles innovation. I don't want a return to the dark ages where only ultra rich folks had anything remotely new or modern that would make their lives richer, easier, more fulfilling or "better" in many ways. I want *everyone* to have that as much as possible.
;)
And yes, I have done this, I have "released to the wild" a widely used implementation and customization idea that I made zero on beyond initital cost of development basically, once with a tool (a specialty wrench design) and once with a very common mode of transport used daily by millions,(I built one of the first prototypes of what evolved into the "mountain bike" concept back in the 70s, and I know that one large company copied the design and started selling them, and I am happy so many people found the idea useful and have run with it,and,although I don't claim exclusivity to it,the concept, I do know from research there were only a handful of fellow bike developers doing this at the time I did my own version of it, there certainly weren't any you could buy on the market), and also I released freely quite a lot of "IP" in the form of writings in the past. It doesn't bother me that those things have been copied by others and improved upon/used whatever. None whatsoever. In fact, the tool I developed I have a few example of where others have adapted and made their own versions, they were freely given to me by THOSE developers.
I share, if you don't want to, that's your business, but if you can copy what I do easily and cheaply, please go for it if that is your interest.
There's a significant difference between copying and stealing. Theft-stealing- means you've taken something from someone and they no longer have it. Copying is not theft, you still have yours, it's fully intact. The word "copy" is what is in dispute and is contentious now. It used to be that it was illegal to teach serfs/slaves to read, or for anyone other than the monks or royals could have "copies" of writings. Times changed. I want times to keep changing, and I see current US style "copyright" as being little different from the exclusivity laws that existed in the middle ages. If they had kept up with the original US design, and exactly followed technological advances, I wouldn't have a problem with it as much, but they haven't, they want to extend it and go bass-ackwards back to the middle ages concept, and I think that's a bad idea.
I personally don't download MP3s or movies or whatever, but I don't consider folks who do that to be heinous criminals either, nor do I consider it "theft" either technically or ethically, although I will grant that the current law structure makes no such distinctions and treats the two words as if they were the same.
I think that law is an ass, a complete absurdity. It is feudalistic in nature now because of our technological advances. It is medieval-level dismal. That is my opinion only of course, and you are welcome to your "me-me-me mine it's all mine" concept, that is your decision to make. I'll make an effort to not touch "your stuff", no problems. If you don't want folks to play with your ball on the playground, that is perfectly all right, I'll find some kids who want to share their stuff to play with. heh.
Never liked cooties anyway..neener