Yes, but when that MP3 is bit-for-bit identical to the version of the song that was downloaded millions of times from bittoreent (or gnutella etc.) you are going to have a tough time arguing that you got it from some other source.
Because their strategy has been to go after the big fish, people with large numbers of files hosted. But now, if they have access to a centralized database of what music files people have on their computer it becomes low hanging legal fruit.
The argument will be made that the leecher made one unauthorized copy of the song...the copy that came from the file sharing service to their computer's disk. It may be just one little copy but it was clearly the leecher's intentional action that created it. Copyright infringement is in the copying.
Well I guess in either way it is a laundering service. The real issue is in what way. The optimists think that Apple will launder all of the dirty laundry for $24.99. The article thinks that you will store all your laundry for $24.99 and then the RIAA laundry inspectors will accuse you of having hundreds or thousands of dirty shirts. And then Apple will allow you to clean that laundry and get rid of the laundry inspectors for just 99 cents a song!
Well, presuming that your CDs never went up to or down from a file sharing service then their signatures are most likely unique and would not raise suspicions. But also bear in mind that Apple's 'minutes, not weeks' statement would not apply to your collection.
Lala was small potatoes, I believe that Amazon de-dupes files purchased through Amazon (which are undeniably legal) but other files are just stored. Google also does just storage. The difference is with Music Mach is Apple is keeping a big central database of who has what.
I am not an RIAA lawyer but I suspect that their argument will go like this: In order for iTunes Music Match to find the song it had to be on your disk. In order for it to be on your disk you made a copy of the song without the rights to do so. The act of making that copy was a violation of copyright. You had 10,000 such files.
But then out of the shadows steps your hero Steve Jobs! He offers that with one click you can make all ten thousand copies legal and make the RIAA go away! And it will only cost you $9,900!
What the RIAA would argue is that the act of downloading the file was making a copy. It was taking the song that was on the file sharing system and making a copy on your disk. In other words the existence of the file isn't the problem, it is the act that created the file.
Exactly, It isn't something that would snare a security-focused used, but they would most likely never let anybody be scanning their system in the first place.
MD5s can possibly be reverse engineered or cracked, but the chances of two files in the wild accidentally having the same MD5 are beyond astronomical. MD5's are perfectly acceptable for doing file comparisons. Besides MD5s were just being used as an example. They may be using SHA or something else.
Apple is the largest music seller on earth. They believe that they lose tons of money each year to file sharing. If they could have a way to get that, and make the RIAA look like the villain doing so, why not?
Or both. They might find billions of illegal copies, the RIAA sends them intimidating letters, and then Apple steps them to offer them a one click solution to all their problems by just buying the music?
Yes but if they detect billions of shared files, and intimidate all of them into buying them for 99 cents...how much money have they made?
On the other hand if it is a watermarked MP3 then they will know the original sharer.
In general any TOS or any privacy policy can be punched through by a court order. The bottom line is that if they are storing the data (which in order to have Music Match work as advertized they do) then the RIAA could subpoena it.
Actually it would apply to any service that did de-duplication across users, but since iTunes Music Match is specifically oriented to music files it provides what one might term a much richer vein of ore for the RIAA to mine.
Apple believes that it loses billions in iTunes sales each year to file sharing.
Once the RIAA is on your case Apple offers a one click solution....just buy all that music legally (from them)! KA-CHING!
First of all they could paint the RIAA as the bad guys. And then, the easy way out of the RIAA's wrath would be to buy legal copies of those songs. By from who? Apple! Then Apple comes off as the hero giving you an easy (thought not cheap) escape from those mean mean lawyers.
As I understand it some of the money from the $24.99 fee does go to the music industry, However would that stop them from ALSO wanting to go after illegal copies and force them to buy (and get even more money)?
They don't have to hash every song ever made. They just have to look for the patterns among the songs that are arriving. Moreover the system doesn't have to be unbeatable because the average person telling Apple 'go ahead and scan my system' isn't thinking two steps ahead.
In addition the article talks about the 8 percent mechanical license given to the publisher. That mostly goes to the writer. If they band writes their own music, hardly unheard of, then that share comes to them too.
Slashdot Mirror
They wouldn't really have to leave a trap. They could just build a database of hash values of the files already available there.
Yes, but when that MP3 is bit-for-bit identical to the version of the song that was downloaded millions of times from bittoreent (or gnutella etc.) you are going to have a tough time arguing that you got it from some other source.
Because their strategy has been to go after the big fish, people with large numbers of files hosted. But now, if they have access to a centralized database of what music files people have on their computer it becomes low hanging legal fruit.
The argument will be made that the leecher made one unauthorized copy of the song...the copy that came from the file sharing service to their computer's disk. It may be just one little copy but it was clearly the leecher's intentional action that created it. Copyright infringement is in the copying.
Well I guess in either way it is a laundering service. The real issue is in what way. The optimists think that Apple will launder all of the dirty laundry for $24.99. The article thinks that you will store all your laundry for $24.99 and then the RIAA laundry inspectors will accuse you of having hundreds or thousands of dirty shirts. And then Apple will allow you to clean that laundry and get rid of the laundry inspectors for just 99 cents a song!
Well, presuming that your CDs never went up to or down from a file sharing service then their signatures are most likely unique and would not raise suspicions. But also bear in mind that Apple's 'minutes, not weeks' statement would not apply to your collection.
Lala was small potatoes, I believe that Amazon de-dupes files purchased through Amazon (which are undeniably legal) but other files are just stored. Google also does just storage. The difference is with Music Mach is Apple is keeping a big central database of who has what.
You realize of course that if Apple banned all RIAA member publishers then iTumes would be essentially empty?
Everybody knows that the tech behind iCloud came from LALA, So?
A poor choice of phrase.
I am not an RIAA lawyer but I suspect that their argument will go like this: In order for iTunes Music Match to find the song it had to be on your disk. In order for it to be on your disk you made a copy of the song without the rights to do so. The act of making that copy was a violation of copyright. You had 10,000 such files. But then out of the shadows steps your hero Steve Jobs! He offers that with one click you can make all ten thousand copies legal and make the RIAA go away! And it will only cost you $9,900!
What the RIAA would argue is that the act of downloading the file was making a copy. It was taking the song that was on the file sharing system and making a copy on your disk. In other words the existence of the file isn't the problem, it is the act that created the file.
Exactly, It isn't something that would snare a security-focused used, but they would most likely never let anybody be scanning their system in the first place.
MD5s can possibly be reverse engineered or cracked, but the chances of two files in the wild accidentally having the same MD5 are beyond astronomical. MD5's are perfectly acceptable for doing file comparisons. Besides MD5s were just being used as an example. They may be using SHA or something else.
Apple is the largest music seller on earth. They believe that they lose tons of money each year to file sharing. If they could have a way to get that, and make the RIAA look like the villain doing so, why not?
Or both. They might find billions of illegal copies, the RIAA sends them intimidating letters, and then Apple steps them to offer them a one click solution to all their problems by just buying the music?
Yes but if they detect billions of shared files, and intimidate all of them into buying them for 99 cents...how much money have they made? On the other hand if it is a watermarked MP3 then they will know the original sharer.
That is exactly the test that the author of the article did: Two computers, same software, same version, same settings, same CD, different MD5
In general any TOS or any privacy policy can be punched through by a court order. The bottom line is that if they are storing the data (which in order to have Music Match work as advertized they do) then the RIAA could subpoena it.
Actually it would apply to any service that did de-duplication across users, but since iTunes Music Match is specifically oriented to music files it provides what one might term a much richer vein of ore for the RIAA to mine.
Apple believes that it loses billions in iTunes sales each year to file sharing. Once the RIAA is on your case Apple offers a one click solution....just buy all that music legally (from them)! KA-CHING!
First of all they could paint the RIAA as the bad guys. And then, the easy way out of the RIAA's wrath would be to buy legal copies of those songs. By from who? Apple! Then Apple comes off as the hero giving you an easy (thought not cheap) escape from those mean mean lawyers.
As I understand it some of the money from the $24.99 fee does go to the music industry, However would that stop them from ALSO wanting to go after illegal copies and force them to buy (and get even more money)?
They don't have to hash every song ever made. They just have to look for the patterns among the songs that are arriving. Moreover the system doesn't have to be unbeatable because the average person telling Apple 'go ahead and scan my system' isn't thinking two steps ahead.
In addition the article talks about the 8 percent mechanical license given to the publisher. That mostly goes to the writer. If they band writes their own music, hardly unheard of, then that share comes to them too.