Court Rules Playlist Customization Is Not Interactive 54
prostoalex writes "Is music played via customized playlist delivered interactively (i.e., via user participation) or non-interactive (i.e., decisions are made on the server side)? The question does seem metaphysical, but it took Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Yahoo! six years to figure it out via a protracted legal battle. User-driven playlists are bucketed with on-demand music services, while server-driven playlists are equaled to broadcasts, thereby causing different licensing mechanisms to take place. Yahoo! inherited the legal wrangle when it purchased a music startup Launch, which built a music recommendation feature. The court decision determined that recommendation algorithms that rely on usage data to build playlists server-side are still eligible for broadcast license, thereby substantially lowering the costs of operating a music recommendation site."
So if I dont have a playlist (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Zen philosphy (Score:2)
And what is the music of an MP3 alone with no playlist to sit in ?
and this is different, how? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well those requests typically are broadcast. Hence the person doing the broadcasting is a "broadcaster". A list of songs delivered to one individual based on their preferences is clearly not broadcast and the person operating the service should not be called a "broadcaster". The selection method doesn't have anything to do with whether you're broadcasting.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that with a radio station when someone phones in a request, everyone listening to that broadcast has to hear it. Often with internet radio each user will be listening to their own version of the 'broadcast', so if you send in a request then only you hear that song.
Aikon-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're correct, sah (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically for any major metropolitan area, an "all request hour" will run about 15 songs. So the only way your request is honored is if you are one of those 15 songs. . . which is extremely rare.
However, they WILL record your request and play it back later as a "request"; happens rather frequently.
That said, I used to get requests regularly in East Lansing when I was a pizza delivery driver, but that's because I annoyed the shit out of them, calling
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree. That's the antecedent that led to this collosal sqandering of time and money in the first place. Many here have long observed that the law and computing are irreconcilable. This is what you get when lawyers and politicians poke thir noses into matters they have no business in.
Lawyers are wannabe computer scientists who never had the technical grades. They aspire to the same degree of rigor. But what do the lawyers do? They
Wonder where this leaves Pandora (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who want to save Pandora: call your Congressmen! Call your Senators! There is a small movement to permanently alter the royalty system.
Make sure you let them know you think the royalty "board" is ridiculous, too. Why should the RIAA have a government-mandated monopoly over an art form?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been a paid Pandora subscriber for a while (my 9+ hrs/day, 5-7 days a week made me think that really it is worth the 3 bucks a month for their bandwidth). As a user, I can choose the direction of the music, but I cannot choose the song or artist that's "up next" (on demand). To me, that means decisions are being made on the server side as to the specific song that is going to be played next.
Really, I view Pandora as server-side activity... same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hi, it's Tim from Pandora,
I'm writing today to ask for your help. The survival of Pandora and all of Internet radio is in jeopardy because of a recent decision by the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, DC to almost triple the licensing fees for Internet radio s
"Metaphysical?" (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think someone knows what that word means...
So I was sittn' in this bar - Toby Ornauh Toby's - with a full pint of beer in half a glass, thinkn' ter meself, if a hard drive thrashes in the server room, an' noone's there ta hear it, does it make a sound?
That's when she walked up. "What's the difference between an orange?" she says, an' I knew in an instant she'd have my one hand clappn'. Aye, lad, those legs ran all th' way from alpha to omega an' back again. Her skirt hiked up as she crost her legs, and I could see she was wearn' the cutest pair o
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Law: 1 Riaa: 0, this time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Consumers are not protected in any way by this ruling, nor is it a sign that RIAA has a shaky legal foundation for its actions against consumers (although a lot of evidence from other cases seem to point in this direction).
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder... why the price difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could it be that I can't be showered with current "hits" when I choose my music? Heaven forbid that people actually choose the music they want to hear!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? One word: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is simple and logical, once you grasp the fundamental desperate need and delusion driving it.
There's a famous saying, it is hard to make someone understand something, if his salary depends upon him not understanding it. Music publishers' salary depends on the realities of old technology, and protecting that old reality. Their salary depends upon not accepting and understanding the internet, and to
Re: (Score:1)
Same music experience, different licensing ? (Score:1)
The customer gets to listen to exactly the same music. The only difference is that with a broadcast-system he does not get to choose when. But thats something that can be fixed by applying time-delaying equipment/software.
This is good news for... (Score:1)
Location of the content files? (Score:2)
Seems dumb to base this based only on the playlist which isn't music at all but a list of instructions for the order of playing songs.
If the music files are stored on the customer's local device, then there should be no licensing at all required no matter where the playlist originates.
Now, if the data files themselves are on the server, and the playlist controls the order in which those datafiles are transmitted, then I can see why some folks might want a distinction. In one case I'd say there is indeed a
Request radio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What the stewardship of copyrights should mean (Score:5, Insightful)
So against all odds, and no matter the Kafka-esque hurdles these people are trying to put up at every possible moment, it is still comforting to know that despite their best efforts to muzzle non-top 40 music, a lot of it will survive because there are many others out there who care about it quite deeply, not for money, but out of LOVE, and because it is part of our cultural heritage.
And in some way it is comforting to think that after putting out so much negative energy, bad vibes, and consistently having so few innovative ideas or vision on what is really needed in today's marketplace to make artists sell some records, (besides suing the pants out of everyone they can) the very people responsible for lobbying for all of this arguably short-sighted legislation are going to get what's coming to them, i.e.: the opportunity to re-tool and learn a new trade very soon.
It's kind of futile to argue against a tidal wave; it's what this particular situation reminds me of.
In the meantime, and until this takes place, there is no question that if I had a Net radio show or anything of that sort, I'd make sure that the servers streaming it are hosted somewhere which cannot be impacted by any such legislative measures.
Z.
Question (Score:2)
Why did we need 6 years of lawyer's fees? (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of good legal decisions are either "obvious" to anyone moderately sane (eg. dealing with an observed killing), or else they're shrouded in complexity that makes no single outcome fully just.
The first type needs nothing more than recourse to a "Fair Witness" (Heinlein's term, but there's some of it in the Jedi concept too, minus fighting), a person whose reputation is based on objectivity and fairness and plain commonsense -- no need for technicalities and legal dickering to come into it at all, by the definition of "obvious". A societal judge without court and with only one Law, simple fairness.
And the second type is handled equally well by the roll of a die --- after all, no single outcome is just. And dice do have the benefit of statistical fairness, which is more than can be said for the legal process where alleged "fairness" depends on your ability to afford good legal representation.
There is something fundamentally flawed in a system where years of arguing are considered to somehow yield justice, as if the cost didn't matter and the time lost meant nothing. Even if all costs were met uniformly out of the public purse, this still would not address the sheer deep freeze that legal proceedings place on society. Time is our most precious commodity, yet as this example showed, this is totally unappreciated in law.
Be that as it may, the current situation is nothing short of appalling, and getting steadily worse. We need a sort of French Revolution to lop off the heads of this new legal aristocracy, but I don't see that happenning --- we're stuck with this mess for the forseeable future, or at least as long as we're tied to this planet. Woes.
Re: (Score:2)
However such foresight is incredible, I can only think that
Court rules Gravity does not Exist too (Score:1)
Gravity continues to exist.
Interactive playlists continue to play.
lusers continue to go into law because they can't grok computers.