Slashdot Mirror
MP3 device makers win at the court
Beke sent us the latest update from the MP3 universe. A US Federal Judge has ruled that Diamond's Rio does not fall under the "digital recording device" definition, as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means that the Rio does not have implement a code system to prevent serial re-recording. So, the act does apply to tapes and CDs - but not to hard drives, says Diamond's attorney.
But CD's skip easly unless u get a expencive one. U could drop the rio on the ground and it woulden't even skip. It would only glitch/ skip/ stop if u acctually physicly broke it. They're smaller. ram disks are also smaller than CD's.
And if u want song fexability, U don't have to spend $ or time on blank CD's.
No Way. I would never trust paying for music that had a system that reqires u to interact with some server. Imagine all the possable problems. And paying each time to listen to a songs would also turn off alot of users.
If i by music. I want the songs on hard copy with no strings attached. So i can back it up. Take it other placese. And generly don't have to rely on some busy, buggy, slow computer on the other side of the world.
The idea about chooseing ur own songs from a huge list and sending them out on a CD sounds like a much better idea. Sure there will still be alot of pyriting from it but i think it would work.
Er, because changing the batteries is easier than loading in a new playlist?
I suspect however, the answer is to keep a bunch of RAM on the unit (16 or 32mb), and only fire up the drive every once in a while. Keep the current track in memory, and maybe the first 30 seconds of every track on the disk (so you can instantly switch tracks while the rest gets loaded in the background).
Sounds like a good idea.
Maybe I'm wrong the microdrive uses almost no juice. Anyone have more info on this issue?
It's designed for use with battery-operated devices, but I don't know how good a job they did on that point.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The point is that artists have a choice now. They can still take the traditional route with recording companies, or if they can, do the recording on their own and publish their music themselves electronically. And no longer are consumers denied good music simply because an artist failed to adhere to a recording company's formula. Sure the quality may not be as good because they did not have access to a high priced studio, but if their music is good and people catch on, they at least have a chance to make it big.
I would have to agree entirely with your point! There have been statements on this site many many times before that musicians shouldnt recieve any kind of re-imbursement for their recordings, that they should tour instead to make money. As a musician myself who is working on releasing his own material for FREE, I can tell you that my low budget(Digital not Analog tape)recording is still going to cost me 10,000.00 to release my music via MP3.I have played on CDs before so I cant deal with a recording that isnt clean. I am not looking to make it back or to make a profit. It means a great deal to me that people can hear my work with no monitary obsticles. However, there are some people who cant do this as easly as I can. This is where my argument comes in that IF there is a requested fair priced (like 6 or 8 bucks for an entire CD)charge for good music, we should pay it and support the artist that we enjoy so that the artist can not only continue to create, but to possibly augment their abilities to record in future releases from OUR contributions. I for one would like to see a revolution in the way music is distributed and hope that MP3 is the catalist as it appears to be.
Maybe the choice that musicians now have, will allow some really great music to be heard that I have been hearing in the bars around my area!
Well yes, the RIAA will probably now turn around and say that a computer qualifies as a digital recording device (which is pretty much does) but because of the fact that a computer is such a general use device the courts will most likly laugh in the RIAA's face.
If RIAA had their way, there would be a tax on babies. After all, babies grow up to be college students, and college students pirate music...
"Generally a pretty clueful opinion, IMHO."
It means people who care, are snailing letters
to people who have influence!
WRITE your representatives! Email doesn't have
the same impact as snail!
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I woudn't be dropping anything that I spend more than 300 bucks on, trust me.... and if I did.. well, I'm not even thinking about it...
Your points are good, but once an audio cd is made, it can be played at home or on the road in any old cd-player...
I think if I had the cash, a RIO with tons of memory is nice, but for now, until i win the lottery, I'll stick with cd's and portable cd-players.
Comment. Have you even noticed how hard it is to find a lot of (even popular) songs on CD-singles? or how expensive they've become? ... I would probably have a lot more if (a) the right product (singles) was available and (b) the price was right. Right now the Music industry is failing badly on both counts. MP3's on the other hand, are delivering the goods in both departments.
I believe this is the cornerstone for all the controversy about mp3s. Of course the Labels are fighting tooth and nail to restrict digital recording - a huge chunk of their revenu stream comes from their ability to control the delivery format! Anyone remember the big tiff Springsteen got into with the Born in America album? (I think that was what it was called) He wanted to put lots of good tunes on one LP. The Label wanted him to spread them out over several LPs. Why? Money! By trickling out only a few "good" songs on each album, they make loads more cash. This is what digital recording and the Internet threatens to destroy: Label control over packaging.
And it's about damned time we consumers were given the opportunity to choose which songs we want on a CD! Personally I think songs should be priced individually and the packaging should happen at the store. I have no problem paying $2.99 or $3.99 for a great tune. And I have no problem paying $30-$40 for a CD full of them. There will be hard feelings (and some piracy) only so long as the Labels refuse to give us the goods we want. And that my friends is pure and simple Capitalism. Tell the lawyers to go home.
"that mail-order music
clubs can charge $4/CD"
Which clubs are those? Not Columbia House or BMG, certainly.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
My friend has a CD burner and he has taken all his Books on tape and copyied them to mp3 and burned them to CD so he can take them to work and play them at work. You don't have to use a really high bitrate either. I expect you could do the same with the rio.
Vermifax
Logout
Here's the passage of the ruling I really like:
[The lower court felt that] "any recording device could evade [ ] regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive. . . . While this may be true, the Act seems to have been expressly designed to create this loophole."
In other words, you have to take music directly off a CD to infringe, not run it through a hard drive.
Finally, the recording industry is getting what it deservers. This is the way I'd love to see things. Artists release their music via mp3's on the net. Then if you like 'em, go support them by going to concerts. I'd rather do that then buy cd's. now, if only i could afford to buy one of those rio's, the world would be a better place :-)
Is enough cash to buy one of these things. That and an Empeg.
-Zen I'm gonna make the _world_ my bitch.
I guess this would then also apply to digital transmission (i.e. my cable modem line buying an MP3 from mp3.com?).
This could have some very serious implications. I'm sure the RIAA is getting their lawyers ready to draft a new version of the home recording act to send to DC....
I buy many.. but then, I already only pay $6-$8 per CD. And legally, too. Unfortunately, it seems people are clueless when it comes to the fact that mail-order music clubs can charge $4/CD (+$2 S/H) and make a profit, while the stores charge $17+ for the same ones... And the mail-order houses have employees, just as stores do. Maybe not as many, but still...
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
What a great day for consumer freedom!
First the death of DIVX, now the liberation of personal MP3 players!
Next article: "Microsoft abandons attempt to produce final version of Windows 2000, It's just to bloated and badly written to adequately debug, recomends Windows users switch to Linux."
(Sorry, all this good news just got me carried away!)
First, Divx dies (Woohoo!), then a court gets a ruling right (Woohoo!). What's next? MS v DOJ Trial ends? (DOH!).
This will now pave the way for bigger and much better players since companies won't be worried about this looming overhead.
RB
Well...
The consumer wins, the industry's trend toward pay per view usage just took a major beating. I like being able to make back-up copies of my CD's to MP3 format. I also like the idea of MP3 CD's with 720 minutes of music on a single CD. If I had a MP3 capable CD player in my car I could put a CD in while in Miami and start driving north and I wouldn't have to change CDs until I got to South Carolina.
Hmm. I guess the car CD changer manufacturers might stand to lose.
The artists win, though the RIAA tries to make a case that they won't. The thing is, the artists the RIAA doesn't represent gain the most -- they now have a easy way to make their music available to the public even if they don't have a major recording house behind them. Some of the best music comes from small local bands who remain undiscovered for one reason or another. We have yet to see if established artists selling their CD's in MP3 format on the net will be able to make money.
The RIAA loses. They lose the stranglehold they've had on the industry. They lose the power to make or break artists on a whim. Ideally they lose their ability to influence the laws of this country through their lobbyests. I hope they lose all their money and are forced to sell their children into slavery in order to continue eating.
First, DIVX is dead!
/.
Second, MP3 on hard drives is legal and the RIAA lawyers were sent scurrying away with their tails between their legs.
Once again, the courts are starting to show they can make the right decisions when they know about the underlying technologies. The RIAA were just trying to be greedy and kill an emerging technology because it might break their monopolistic stranglehold on the market. The court seems to have seen through that lie, and saw that the RIO allows only single copies to be made at a time.
Notice they cleverly sidestepped the issue of the legality of MP3s, so the battle with the RIAA will go on until no more lawyers will touch the case or the RIAA are all thrown into prison.
I like the DIVX quote about how all consumers liked it, but no retailers or music studios supported it. I thought nobody supported it, and the only people who bought the players were pressured into it by the Circuit City sales droids (commissions were twice for DIVX than for DVD alone).
And the DIVX silver allowing unlimited playing turns out not to be unlimited, but will stop playing in 2001.
Too much good news in one day from
the AntiCypher
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Sorry, I was kidding. That would take the cake for the best week. :-)
I've seen several other MP3 related news tidbits in the last day so with little fanfare, here's a rundown of them...
1. There was an article about MP3 usage by young people in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, Page 1 of the Marketplace section). Basically it talks about how MP3 usage has migrated down from the college crowd to the High Schools and Middle Schools. Among other things, students mention the popularity of using the School's Computers and connections to download MP3's, and the ease of finding specific songs.
Comment. Have you even noticed how hard it is to find a lot of (even popular) songs on CD-singles? or how expensive they've become? I own over 1,000 audio CD's (anyone remember 3 inch CD-singles?) but I would probably have a lot more if (a) the right product (singles) was available and (b) the price was right. Right now the Music industry is failing badly on both counts. MP3's on the other hand, are delivering the goods in both departments.
2. If I recall correctly, Creative's Nomad unit is supposed to have voice recording capability built in. Maybe that's a great idea, but wouldn't that make it a big target for the RIAA as it would have anknowledged built-in recording capability; which the lack of was main part of the decision in the Rio's favor. I guess so far the Creative unit (is it shipping yet?) has stayed under the RIAA's radar.
3. Yesterday, I saw on NEWS.com the announcment that (some?) future RIO units will use IBM's matchbook-sized 340mb MicroDrive Hard Disk. Currently Storage Capacity is the big sticking point with my geek friends and portable MP3 players. 340mb == 5 1/2 hours @ 128Kbits.
Comment. My wife owns a RIO (32mb). While the memory size (8 songs usually) is a downside, the batter life and light weigh is an unexpected upside. She uses it a lot, including when she works out or rides her Motorcycle. And the thing is darn near indestructible. What good is 5 1/2 hours of music if battery life is only 4 hours? If new units need a better battery, wouldn't that mean heavier? I suspect however, the answer is to keep a bunch of RAM on the unit (16 or 32mb), and only fire up the drive every once in a while. Keep the current track in memory, and maybe the first 30 seconds of every track on the disk (so you can instantly switch tracks while the rest gets loaded in the background). Maybe I'm wrong the microdrive uses almost no juice. Anyone have more info on this issue?
4. Finally, has anyone given thought to "books on tape" becoming "books on MP3"? Audio books do suprisingly well; and taking a RIO with a book-on-tape on a 3 1/2 hour airplane flight would be way more convient that taking a bunch of tapes, tape player, and batteries.
Is this really in the ruling???
I thought that Diamonds argument, and a good one
at that, what that the Rio could not record
sound in any way -- i.e. the audio/digital
interface lay somewhere else (meaning when the
sound gets turned into some fixed digital rep.)
Here's what I think is the core of the decision:
Here's an interesting footnote:
Generally a pretty clueful opinion, IMHO.
Burn custom CD's with N MP3 files on them selected manually by users from a huge demo web site like MP3.com. $.25 a song, overnight delivery. The RIAA members could beat MP3.com to the punch with their huge catalogs and the profit margins would be enormously higher. Then you split off the art materials and fan stuff which eats into the profit margin into pay-zines and e-commerce items which you can order along with the songs. *DUUUUH*!!
If the recording industry really wants to do something good for the artists they represent (not likely), they will reduce the ridiculous prices on CDs. It's a widely known fact that CDs cost less to produce than audio cassettes, yet they routinely sell for double and triple the price! How many more CDs would you buy if they were 7 or 8 bucks apiece?
You know, I wonder something - the ruling is stating that the RIO doesn't fall under the guidelines of the Audio Home Recording Act, because the RIO "downloads" a copy of a digital encoded image (MP3) from another hard drive, and that it doesn't make recordings from an analog source. However, if you wanted to remain legal with everything, in order to get a song you don't have in another format (CD, tape), you would have to purchase the MP3 from someplace, then download it to the RIO - and checks would have to be in place to keep your freind from downloading it to his RIO as well (from your computer), right? Plus, the RIO couldn't have any kind of audio in plugs for recording...
What is so confusing about this is that the Audio Home Recording Act seems to apply mainly to the conversion process - from digital (CD) to analog (speakers, audio out), then using that output to make an illegal tape or something (or CD - back to digital). In other words, going from digital to analog then back to digital (with MP3 or CD, or staying analog, in the case of a tape) is wrong, but what about straight digital? In other words, direct CD -> CD or CD -> MP3 encoding? How does this fit in?
I know this is rambling - I hope someone can make since of what it is I am getting at. I guess I am wondering if the act would cover RIOs that could download from each other? Not record from an analog source - but direct digital copies? Then download to your computer? No analog process involved? It almost seems like the fact that music CDs are data (and not analog recordings) is getting lost somewhere...
Aggg!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It seems to me that the only workable model for online music distribution is a voluntary, shareware style system. It's no use trying to force your users to pay for the music; any scheme you could come up with is trivial to defeat (by resampling the music if nothing else), so copy protection schemes only serve to irritate and alienate your legitimate users.
So how about this: Encode in each mp3 file some kind of (PGP-signed) account information linked to the author(s) of the song. Then, whenever the song is playing, there can be a panel in the player's GUI that lights up and says something like:
"You have listened to this song 17 times. License fee for this song is 5 cents per listen, up to a maximum of one dollar. Click here to pay the license fee and support your favorite music!"
When you click, the program deducts some money from your account (credit card or whatever) and adds it to that of the musician.
Of course, users would be free to ignore this message as long as they wanted, but that's no worse than the current system--pirates won't pay no matter what. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of people out there who *would* pay for the music they enjoy, if it was dead-easy and hassle free to do so.
Does anyone else think such a thing could work?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What the heck is this 'Audio Home Recording Act' anyways? The name sound like they control anything recorded at home in an audio format.. (I hope the RIAA doesn't try to pick up this idea)
But if you own the CD you may do anything you want w/ it, becuase you own the rights to the CD which you bought. You can dub it to tape, you can rip it to MP3, you can piss on it becuase it is yours to do almost what ever you want. The copywrite laws states whats illegal, which is basically you can't sell copies of something you bought and you can't just give away copies to your freinds.
I think the government should shut down the RIAA due the laws of intellagence and moral based with-in this group becuase they get away with ripping of the public and the artists. RIAA is almost a monopoly if you look at in the right light. Every band that made it to be known by everyone is on a label which is involded w/ the RIAA. It's like you have to sell your soul to make it in the record industry. Also note that everytime that a radio station plays a song by an artist that is in some way attacted to the RIAA they have to pay royalty fees, so anyone that say that pirating is hurting the arist majorly, think about how many times you hear their song on the radio.........
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Seriously, just buy the translucent teal Dianmond Rio PMP 300 (64MB) and add a 32MB chip. Three hours. Actually, get the leather case and buy three 32MB chip - then you can have a base 2 hours of your faves and three 1 hour chips for different moods.
It's just as light, still uses one AA battery.
Will in Seattle
Will in Seattle
The ruling is that the RIO is not a recording device, and so isn't covered by existing laws.
The ruling has nothing to do with which media
types are covered. E.g. by the judge's reasoning,
a the Rio is like a CD player or even a tape player - it is a mechanism for playing recorded
sounds, not a mechanism for recording those sounds.
Presumably, MP3 *recorders* would still be recording devices and so fall under existing laws.
Can a RIO send a digital stream elsewhere?
Of course, by RIAA's logic, your cd player, interconnects,preamp, amp, speakerwire and speakers could be "recording devices"...
Who will pay for the thousands of dollars in studio costs for a band that dosnt have any money? You cant book a nationwide tour on an unknown band. Sure there are exceptions, but statisticly speaking... There are a lot of talented bands who would have no hope of ever releasing anything if they werent supplied with the cost of printing a CD. This is the primary reason that record companies appeared in the first place(before they turned into corporate musical garbage houses interested in money only, not truly talented acts)
IP Multicasting Initiative and iBAND are two conferences which offer MP3 versions of the proceedings. The last iBAND combined the cost of the MP3 player with the registration which might make gadget acquisition easier for some of us.
Let's see, Rio Personal 64MB was $249.95 (but if you go to the web site and upgrade from a standard Rio, they give you $100 off). Memory chips are $99.95 for 32MB or $179.95 for 2pack (32MB).
Cheap.
Oh, ok, maybe not, but light as all get out. The Memory chips are teeny, the player is nigh-invulnerable and you don't really need the case.
Will in Seattle
Will in Seattle