MP3.com Countersues RIAA 227
Nik4 writes "As per this news item on Yahoo, MP3.com has filed a law suit against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its president, Hilary Rosen. More details are available here on the MP3.com site. MP3.com is complaining of defamation, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices.
" At this point, I think it's safe to say that the MP3 will be locked up in court for quite some time - and in the meantime, MP3 will become more and more the standard.
I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:3)
(There is an Open Source MP4 encoder/decoder for Linux, now. The sooner people start taking that seriously, the better.)
However, the RIAA's bid for total domination of the digital market can't hold up to -real- scrutiny. This countersuit may produce questions in the media and the public that the RIAA don't want asked, let alone answered. That can only help free formats and haten the demise of the software patent.
Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:1)
It's as if RIAA is just attacking a sound FORMAT as opposed to actual copyright violations. Sick! Good luck to MP3.com.
Re:Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:2)
RIAA is upset because mp3.com has a service where if you have a CD in your personal collection, you can "register" it with mp3.com, and then anywhere you go, you can login and listen to the mp3's that correspond with your CD from their servers.
The RIAA is saying they are illegally distributing music that they have no right to this way.
And part of it is probably because of the format and the fact that like you said, many files on mp3.com are by independants that the RIAA can not make any money off of.
Hence the counter-suit (Score:2)
Exactly. MP3.com *only* distributes legal mp3s. That's why they are suing for libel (among other things) against the RIAA which makes out *all* mp3 users as 'music pirates'. IANAL, but the RIAA lawsuit seems completely groundless, but is completely typical of large coporations.
What do you do when you can no longer compete? In the old days, your company might go bankrupt. Now, you can just file frivolous lawsuits against the competition.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
wake up (Score:1)
As much as
I tend to agree with Mr. Hemos here that by the time this battle is over, the war will have been fought and won around them. Mp3 is here, it's popular and it works for me [mp3.com].
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Good for them! (Score:1)
A similar case for DVD (Score:2)
Opening a libel case against the MPAA should be fun. And before anybody says it can't be done, look at the McLibel case. The defendent didn't win, but they cost McDonalds a slew of money, and opened up a lot of information that McDonalds didn't want publicised.
MP3.com the next Mocrosoft? (Score:2)
In other words, MP3.com will one day be using laws and questionable tactics to leverage their name. Does anyone know if I'm right here? Is MP3.com fighting the good fight, or just trying to benefit themselves?
On the one hand, in this case it amounts to the same thing: their economic incentive is pushing them to defend a possibly brighter future from the owners of a dark past. On the other hand, who out there has the MP3 business model which works more like Linux, more like the GPL: value adding services/packaging/quality guarantees around "free" and "open" products?
Where is Open Source music, and who is willing to fight for it?
More Info (Score:4)
Take a look at the MPEG-4 Structured Audio: Developer Tools [berkeley.edu] for info on MP-4.
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix [rootprompt.org]
A jury trial (Score:2)
It seems that the RIAA has tried to bully some of the investment bankers that MP3.com is doing business with. If they can get it to stick in court and maybe link it to the plummeting of their stock, this would become a great trial. I wish them the best
Countersuits are routine (Score:2)
IANAL, but AFAIK, It is almost routine to launch a countersuit. It helps settlement. And in this case it's more than justified.
It's time to pay for your sins, Big Corp! (Score:3)
There ought to be a backslash. Big Corps, including RIAA, MPAA and BSA and the likes, have been defaming and libelling users with such qualificative as "pirate", "thieves", etc ..
It's time for payback. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit is, it will bring the attention of the medias to this problem. At least people will start challenging those blatant lies, whereas, up until now, journalist would just copy word by word those insults. When was the last time you read an article in a mainstream journal showing a critical opinion on the "piracy" issue?
Re:Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:1)
This brings a smile to my face (Score:1)
Napster should follow suit (Score:1)
I also hope that the Johansen family files suit against the MPAA. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
Its about time! (Score:2)
They are attacking the format. (Score:1)
Hence they are aiming to control playing, not copying. Hence the DVD and SDMI issues; if they control the players they control the market.
New American business strategy... (Score:1)
kwsNI
Re:A jury trial (Score:2)
Prospective Juror: "Power switch? Is that one of them new-fangled computer thingies? I don't need one of those - I already have the Internet on one of those AOL disks at home."
RIAA Attorney: "We'd like to have this guy on the jury, Your Honor."
This is a good case to watch. (Score:5)
I suspect that there are probably a lot of other fascinating tidbits that will come out of this trial, so I'll certainly be watching closely!
Excellent (Score:1)
Meanwhile, why not check out this page [mp3.com] at MP3.com? It's got some stuff you may like.
Read the previous post (Score:1)
The real reason the RIAA is pissed off here is because they can imagine sites with nothing but hunders of mp3.com codelines that would allow people to use the mp3.com system to get (more or less) any mp3s they wanted.
Essentially, another industry whose role has been swept away by technology is fighting to suppress that technology wherever it can't control it.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:1)
You say that MP3 is going to drive itself out of the market? Do you know how many hardware mp3 players there are in production today? Do you know how many WILL be in production? At comdex in Fall 1999, there were TONS of mp3 player manufacturers peddling their wares. And yet only about half of them have started shipping to the public! There are some we have not even seen yet! MP3 is a very well established standard, and that, I am glad for.
MP3 will not die, it is far too popular, especially with those in college. College students are taking mp3s to a new level, and they will continue when they graduate.
MP3 is here to stay, at least for a while. It is far too established to go away any time soon.
Re:It's time to pay for your sins, Big Corp! (Score:1)
"The medias" already know about the problem. They are part of the problem. A part of the problem, controlled by and profiting from the "Big Corps".
ThadIMHO Blah Blah Blah
Fighting (Score:5)
The RIAA went way out of line here. Hilary Rosen calling their securities analysts, and making insinuations about "what could happen to [MP3.com's] stock if they were sued"? Press releases saying that "[MP3's] are akin to walking into a record store and stealing a CD" - even when blatantly targetting (in the release) artists who had not been able to be signed by a contract, whose only real means of distribution *was* mp3.com (and were being paid for it), doing their damndest to try to convince them they were being ripped off.
Assuming, of course, that all of MP3.COM's assertions are true, the RIAA appointed itself judge and jury. There is no way they could justify calling banks and saying "are you sure you want to invest in these guys, who are stealing from us"...
Of course they're defending economic interest. There is money to be made in music. Good luck to them. The RIAA are the ones who want to maintain the monopoly. mp3.com's primary purpose is themselves, sure, but the RIAA is impuning an entire format as being 'purely for illegal purposes'.
Not quite sure about your "get it" comments. They're not open source. Because the music is distributed very cheaply, or in some cases free, I don't think comparing it to Red Hat etc is an apples and apples comparison.
MP3.com isn't the only company pushing MP3s by any means. Lycos, Yahoo, etc all also have big interests in it. (Yes and Napster too - I'm not naming any other mp3 sites, because I don't pay much attention to them).
I think clearing mp3's name will be the biggest benefit to the 'community', but I think they are more than right to go hellbound after an organisation has ripped them to shreds without the merest illusion of fair tactics.
Re:Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:1)
I'm not sure if it would be possible ('RIAA has stated that all MP3 sites are illegal, mine isn't so they are saying I'm a criminal and that's libel'), but it would be fun to see how many lawsuits RIAA can have against them.
I don't think that have X*Y lawyers
RIchy C.
--
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:3)
hardware mp3 players there are in production today? Do you know how many WILL be
in production? At comdex in Fall 1999, there were TONS of mp3 player manufacturers
peddling their wares.
And most of these are committed to SDMI compliance. Which means that the RIAA fires a magic bullet and all your MP3s are gone. (They haven't finalised that, but they intend to.)
Once SDMI is on the market, you can bet they will aggressively sue anybody who peddles anything that does not comply. A company will no more be able to make a non-compliant audio player (like the old Rios) than they will be able to make and distribute a non-zoned DVD player.
Re:This is a good case to watch. (Score:1)
I haven't heard anything about this, but AFAICT, this would be breaking SEC law, and they could be held both criminally and civilly liable, couldn't they? And if so, how do we get this out to the web in critical mass form?
Brings me to an idea I've thought about for a while... I wonder if there is a way to set up something on or like Slashdot that would operate sort of like an Open Source "investigative journalism." For example, I post my investigative piece, others do the fact and bias checks, and once it's thoroughly vetted for accuracy, the story is released to the web. Then the media would have a pre-screened, non-media conglomerate owned outlet where they could easily look for "scoops".
Ha ha ha hah ha ha ha! (Score:1)
We need some legislation about the need for open file formats along with open standards, completely separate from legislation about copyrights over the content. I don't care if you want to protect your Britney Spears song, Mr. BigRecordCompany, that doesn't give you the right to persecute the people using mp3 files.
I don't believe people can get this upset over a *file format*, jeez. It's almost as stupid as "Burn all
However, whenever people smell money, expect something stupid. Like LinuxOne, for example...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalents. (Score:4)
There are two honest sides to this. On the one hand are the copyright owners who have a legitimate goal of reducing illegal copying at all levels. Unless we want to lobby for the total abolition of copyright on everything, I think that copy protection mechanisms are a legitimate goal.
On the other hand we have the consumer who wants to make fair use of purchased material. In the past both law-makers and courts around the world have been broadly supportive of fair use measures. The Sony vs United Media case is the one I've seen cited in the US, and I believe that similar rulings apply over here. For those unfamiliar with it, the court took the view that copyrights are not an absolute form of property, but a form of regulation designed to increase the production of creative works.
The judge in the DeCSS case made reference to this doctrine, but said that Congress should be given very broad lattitude by the courts in making such laws, since they had both the mandate and the information to make good ones. Hence the DMCA stands.
So I think we have to educate our lawmakers here. Acknowledge copy protection technology as a legitimate means to legitimate ends, but emphasise that these schemes give content produces an unprecedented degree of control over the end use of their products. This degree of control was probably not forseen by the lawmakers who voted for DMCA (I don't comment on those who actually wrote the clauses, or the companies who lobbied for it). Hence technological copy control should only be supported by the law where it permits fair use. We can emphasise this by demonstrating copy protection schemes which permit fair use. We are good at technology: that bit should be easy.
The problem with this is that "fair use" is very hard to pin down. The law surrounding it is complicated and varies between juristictions. This means that any copy protection scheme that tries to decide if a particular copy is legitimate before allowing the copy is not going to work. There is simply no way that a piece of software can make that decision.
The only other approach would seem to be some kind of detection after the fact. For instance, if every copy included a watermark of some kind in the encryption then it would be possible to track down the person who made the copy.
This scheme might be criticised on civil liberty grounds: if the government can track down the person who made a copy of something, they can equally track down the person who said something they don't like. But such a scheme would only apply to the copier of a protected work: anything you create yourself would not be watermarked in this way.
Of course there are a few grey areas. Fair use includes litrary criticism and similar excerpting. So what about a political activist who quotes a copy protected news report in the course of saying something the Government doesn't like? The creator of the copy could be tracked down. But for the vast majority of use I think this has to be the way to go.
Paul.
McLibel had a big cost for defendants (Score:1)
MP3's stock and the wildcard (Score:3)
Could it be that this lawsuit may be just as much calculated to reduce MP3.com's stock price, allowing them to be snapped up more easily? Given that they are the public face of unprotected "pirate" technology such as MP3s, a BMG acquisition would no doubt neutralise this, turning them into another tool of big-4 oligopoly. Beam-It could well go ahead, only with more Orwellian tracking and security, and everything would be phased over to a SDMI-based system that runs only on Windows and gives the middlemen control.
RIAA Senior Exec contradicts RIAA's claims! (Score:3)
--
Re:This is a good case to watch. (Score:1)
Support policies, not people (Score:3)
People who hated IBM in the old days often supported MS just because it was the underdog. They're not the underdog any more. MP3.com may not be the underdog one day. We should support their current policy, rather than the company per se.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:1)
Oh, but you contridict yourself. Read below.
Once SDMI is on the market, you can bet they will aggressively sue anybody who peddles anything that does not comply.
You say that there are SDMI players on the market, yet you state that "Once SDMI is on the market", implying that SDMI players are not there yet.
RIAA Senior Exec contradicts RIAA's claims! (Score:4)
--
Re:Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:1)
The problem for the RIAA is that I have a fair-use right to CDs I own, and MP3's service looks very much like a legit tool that would enable me to listen to CDs I own at work, for example.
Add to this the fact that MP3 has opened a breach in the dam that cannot be plugged. MP3 remote access like this is just one aspect of a generalized ability to upload and synch, retieve, steam, and otherwise use one's stuff on the Web. Take a look at fusionOne. They will upload a wide variety of files, and synch them to a wide variety of apps, databases, systems, and gizmos. Music will not be very special in this context.
Why not Restraint of Trade? (Score:4)
If the RIAA lawsuit is frivolous and/or based on false information in its filings, there could be additional claims -- there is strong precedent for antitrust liability for abusing the legal system for anticompetitive purposes.
Any lawyers care to comment?
Re:MP3.com the next Mocrosoft? (Score:1)
Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass again. I seem to do that alot after my first ten cups of coffee...bzzzzzzzzzz.
Re:MP3.com the next Mocrosoft? (Score:1)
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
RIAA contradicts itself! (Score:2)
--
Oops - Please moderate this down (Score:2)
--
HeHe... How about a class action suit... (Score:2)
If you own legal MP3s, either those you downloaded that were in the public domain, or those you ripped from CDs you already own... raise your hand.
The RIAA is basically calling all of us pirates and theives... dounds like libel, slander, and defamation of character to me.
Oughta be easy enough, even if the chances are rather low of actually winning, to find a bloodthirsty lawyer looking to get 30% of whatever billions such a huge corperate conglomerate would be penalised.
Or how about attempted restriction of my right to make backup copies in any form I choose, of any media I legitimately own?
Or what about federal prosecution under RICO? Start writing to your congressmen! The RIAA sure seems like it's engaging in racketerring. And it is UNDOUBTEDLY corrupt!!!
Turnabout's fair play, let's give those SOBs some of their own medicine!!!
Oh, and all the same applies to the MPAA as well.
And on a slightly more likely to happen note... Is the EFF involved in this one as well??? Methinks it's about time to join.
john
Re:Its about time! (Score:2)
Replying to myself, let me say the RIAA propoganda even had me going. If MP3.com had an agenda, its to make a wonderful method of communication more free.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
Re:wake up (Score:2)
Linux is not really that small a piece of the pie. Yes, a lot of kids use Windows to download, but kids buy cars and MP3 car players use Linux.
Then, there's the one-upmanship. You upload a whole load of CDs in VQF or MP4 format, put a link to players, and make a note on the page that this is newer, cooler and better than MP3. In no time flat, MP3 will be declared "uncool", for "oldies" and "trash".
A format lasts only as long as its fan club. And its fan club will last only as long as its fans think that they are getting the latest and coolest stuff. Fall short, and you're out.
Re:Multi region DVD (Score:2)
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
That's technologically infeasable, at least for music. The record producers would have to make 3 million different CDs instead of 3 million copies of the same CD. That would drive the price of CD music up out of reach of a lot of consumers. Furthermore, if the watermarking is somehow coded into the MP3 encoder, then all MP3s that I make are watermarked with the same code, whether they're legal copies, illegal copies, or my own original works. And, if any mp3 encoder is released as Open Source, all the warez puppies will just take out the watermarking code, and have untracable copies. Either CD prices go up, or MP3 encoders go closed-source. Either way, the geeks get screwed and piracy continues.
This scheme might be criticised on civil liberty grounds
There's an understatement. What music I own or listen to is my business and nobody else's. That includes the people who think they still "own" my music after I bought it.
The real problem I see with the DMCA is that (evil software co.) can put a clause in their click-through license that says you can't disclose problems with their software, and it's legally binding. How many security holes do you think (evil software co.) is going to fix if nobody can publish bug reports online? The pointy haired bosses will see bugs posted for (Open Source OS) but none for (evil, closed OS) and assume that (evil, closed OS) is a better system, because it has no bugs.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
One result is near certain (Score:2)
This happened to me once with a small business I owned. Things were tough, and I had some preliminary talks with a competitor about selling the business. We couldn't reach a deal, so he called my banker and told him I was trying to liquidate my inventory from under them. It was too small-time to get lawyers involved, but I'll never forget it. One of the sleaziest things I've ever seen. I still get chills when I replay the conversations in my mind.
This case isn't about copyright, it's about reigning in some politcally-connected bullies, and they're long overdue for a good spanking. Or an anti-trust investigation. But don't expect the Clinton folks to lift a finger.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
Algorithms -should- be free for the taking. They aren't. Ask a certain Jon Johanson if the CSS algorithm was "free for the taking". Or the Slashdot crew. There are a lot of people out there fighting for the rights YOU presume you already have.
The problem, as I see it, is you've presumed for so long that the Corporate Sector has robbed them from under your nose, and you've not even noticed. Or cared. This is the real world, where nice people get trampled on by nasty people. That doesn't mean it's better to be nasty, but it DOES mean accepting that nastiness is real, so that you can do something about it. Obliviousness to the DeCSS and mp3 fiascos offer no more protection than an ostrich hiding it's head in the sand.
NEED A MIRROR! (Score:2)
--
MP3.com's Response to RIAA (Score:2)
I really think it is time for us consumers to step up to the plate and let folks know that we are not going to put up with being bullied any more. We have had to endure taxes on recordable media because "we might make a copy of that N*sync album for our friends". What were the actual numbers for people who recorded stuff and gave it away? Something around 10%. So, instead of trying to get people to realize that piracy is wrong, let's just make everybody pay so that The Rolling Stones can make even more money! (And trust me folks, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. are the ones raking in the money over this. Folks like the late Muddy Waters, etc. are getting a paltry sum since the tax is distributed based on record sales.)
Remember also the other things the RIAA wanted to do - wonderful things like making used record stores pay them a tax each time a used CD/LP/tape was sold. Why? To get even more money, of course!
Lawsuits, the OLD American business strategy (Score:3)
A lawsuit isn't primarily a means for gaining cash. It's a means to gain delay. Courts recognize that you can't put the genie back in the bottle, so they're extremely willing to grant orders stopping distribution of a new technology.
As such, the amount of extra R&D money that they'd have is totally secondary; what they want is catch-up time. So what if the suit fails or even if the defendant is awarded costs - big deal. Paying for lawsuits, offensive and defensive, is a cost of doing business.
This was true in military-related industry in the 50's, in computer hardware in the 70's when the mainframe race was really heating up, and it's true in software in the 90's and 00's.
This is also why companies try to build patent portfolios. If they are really in the wrong in a lawsuit, they can choose to cross-license patents, with or without a cash payment, to make up the value of the suit. It costs them much less than putting up dollars.
--
Re:More Info (Score:2)
And whatever the individual's right to use their own music, you cannot exploit that for your company's commercial gain.
Surely I need not spell out the implications to the RIAA if there were in fact any legal doctrine preventing corporations from "exploiting" music owned by individuals.
/.
Re:This is a good case to watch. (Score:3)
Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.
My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.
I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.
Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:
First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.
And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.
People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).
This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.
It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.
I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).
See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
> The RIAA does,
I believe this was to mean "I never said MP3.com -did- own the MP3 format. The RIAA does say that MP3.com...."
To end the stupid people who missed the point of this
Re:McLibel is a little different. (Score:2)
No they're not. The very trial in the subject line got lots of publicity both while it was on, and also after it was complete.
The UK doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom, but in both juristicions unless the judge seals the testimony, then anyone can report on what went on in the court room or walk into the court and listen for themselves.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:3)
The RIAA does not own MP3. MP3.com does not own MP3. "No one" does not own MP3.
"Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V." owns MP3. The patent is here [ibm.com].
Okay, that's an oversimplification. The patent only covers an encoding algorithm, not the format itself, and Fraunhofer may have some obligations to license it under certain terms. But for practical purposes, any MP3 encoder that is not distributed with Fraunhofer's blessing is probably illegal.
Here's some background:
http://www.mp3.com/news/095.html [mp3.com]
http://slashdot.org/articles/98
Having said all that, I still don't understand what you mean when you say that the RIAA and MP3 are both going to drive themselves out of the market. What market? Are we going to go back to clockwork music boxes instead?
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:3)
Hopefully consumers will never feel they have to pay more to subsidize initiatives that lower the value of their purchases.
Libel (Score:2)
Opinion is not libel.
For something to be opinion, it does not have to say, "This is opinion." Having such a disclaimer, does help. This was decided in King v. The Boston Globe. (Mas SJC).
To prove libel on a public figure, you have to show:
It looks like libel may be able to be shown in this case.
But one is not be required to litigate something be fully litigated to say that they violated the law, otherwise Clinton would have a filed suit against Paula jones and many others for saying that he had sexually harassed her, prior to a trial decision.
SUN? (Score:2)
What happend? Was Sun worried that it could no longer compete, so instead of folding, they push lawsuits.
What is even more sad is that AOL (who is also apart of the whining coalltion) is gobbling up all these different companies and becoming a very huge internet/media company, but Janet Reno and her henchmen are so quiet about it. Isn't AOL engaging in uncompetitive practices by now (pending merger approval) controlling a large stake in all media?
I'm glad you brought up this great point, auntfloyd!
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
For "pure" music, of course, you've got MIDI and other note-based formats, which give you much better lossless compression than you could otherwise achieve.
I'd say that if MP3 becomes sufficiently troublesome for the average user, these other formats (some of which are dated, that's true) may suddenly look a lot more attractive.
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
I agree that the law needs to take copy control measures into account, with an eye towards defending fair use, rather than the intellectual 'property' of copyright holders. But I think you're mistaken to think that technological measures that really protect against illegal copying while permitting fair use are 'easy'. If you can view it, you can copy it - and this is especially true when you physically control the hardware used to view it.
Here's how I'd like to see the law handle copyright, copy protection, and fair use: If a copyright holder publishes a work in a 'shrinkwrap' form that includes technological measures that deliberately make some fair uses difficult or impossible (i.e. most copy protection schemes), the copyright is rendered null-and-void. So copyright holders can attempt to 'protect' works themselves, or they can ask the government to help them enforce copyright, but they can't do both. Make them face a tradeoff not unlike the trade secret/patent tradeoff. Copyright should not be permitted when the copyright holder attempts to limit the (effective) rights of the buyer further than the law already does, just as patents should not be granted to inventors who are unwilling to disclose how their invention works.
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. What I have in mind is that the copy mechanism would embed the watermark. In the case of a mass-produced CD the watermark would be the same for every copy, and would point to Mammoth Music Inc. But if you buy one of these CDs and make a private copy on your home CD burner then the new copy will have a different watermark pointing at you.
On the civil liberties front, this does not require that you register each piece of music in order to be able to play it. However it might require that you register your CD burner. Or the law could subpoena the source of the copy from whoever they caught holding it, and then verify the information by inspecting your equipment.
Paul.
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
I wonder if we're all playing right into RIAA's hands. The details of how an SDMI player could ever stop playing MP3s is very vague -- how would they ever be able to communicate with and get their "stop working" message to a CD-ROM player? For anything that uses a open interface for storage (ISO CD-ROMs, or Flash RAM that is writable using non-MS/Apple OSes) it's impossible.
But if what you're saying is true, then it doesn't even need to work. If they can convince (coerce) the manufacturer to put "SDMI Compliant" on the box, then FUD will keep anyone from ever buying them, and RIAA wins.
---
Re:Why would RIAA be upset in the first place? (Score:2)
I would persume the argument is, you might have the right to listen to the music, but that doesn't give MP3.com the right to distribute it. And they do have a point - radio stations and libraries have to pay for the right to distribute copyright works, even temporarily. It doesn't matter if you have a copy at home or not. The counter argument must surely be that MP3.com is not distributing the music, but simply providing (part of) the conversion process that supplies the end product to your ears.
Now consider if I have a juke box rigged up to a telephone such that I can dial into it and listen to music. Can the RIAA sue the jukebox for distribution?
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
Thats part of the rub, trying to convice consumers that this is good for them. Most people aren't that stupid.
I don't value my opinion so much that I think it could slow down an industry, but educating your friends and families about the realities of the situation can help to keep media and media companies consumer conscious (vs. the "screw 'em and take their money" attitude that now seems prevalent).
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
Re:Spoken languages, bleagh. (Score:2)
Alternate formats (Score:2)
I still can't believe there's so much hype and hooplah surrounding the mp3 audio format. I'm surprised that the RIAA isn't more worried about lossless compression formats. You'd think that formats with no generational sound quality loss, or any loss of information for that matter, would really get some panties in a bunch.
Mark this offtopic if you want, but here's some info I've never seen on Slashdot about a lossless compression format called Shorten.
SoftSound [softsound.com], the developer of the format, sells a Windows encoder/decoder. There are also FREE versions available for Windows, Linux, and Mac. The HOWTO for the format is located here [hyperactiveinc.com]. There's also a great guide located here [tripod.com]. Shorten for Mac and Linux is over here [hornig.net].
Anyone interested in the lossless compression of audio should definately give this a look-see.
MP4 is not an improved MP3 (Score:2)
So you wouldn't be able to convert your CD tracks to MP4.
Quotes:
'MP4-SA is different from standards like the MIDI File Format, because it includes not only the notes to play, but the method for turning notes into sound.'
'If the instrument models use algorithmic synthesis instead of wavetables, an MP4-SA file can describe realistic musical performances without using any audio data -- just score data, mixdown cues, and DSP algorithms. In this case, the MP4-SA file is about the same size as a MIDI File, but is a lossless encoding of the audio heard at mixdown. Just like a WAV file -- but 50 to 1000 times smaller!'
--Luc
MP3 itself is nearly obsolete (Score:2)
While the MPAA and MP3.com battle it out to determine the future of music files degraded by lossy compression, those on the cutting edge have moved on.
Check out: www.softsound.com [softsound.com] for instance. They have a LOSSLESS compression scheme called "shorten" that can reduce a sound file 2:1.
It isn't 10:1 like MP3, but considering that most people have written off audio data as uncompressable, a 2:1 ratio isn't too shabby.
Audiophiles have quietly switched over to this format for internet music trading. As the internet bandwidth grows, the file size advantage of MP3 will become less important, and lossless compression such as shorten will replace lossy compression schemes, such as MP3, and the current crop of SDMI compression schemes that the recording industry is "betting the farm" on.
Plus, a CDR loaded with
If the recording industry was SMART, they would position MP3 as a "preview", or streaming format, like FM radio and advertise it as a lower quality, more convenient format at a lower price, or even give it away for free. Then they would be in a position to sell their uncompressed tracks at full price as a "premier" product, and interest in MP3s would diminish.
However, the recording industry isn't smart.
Instead, they are positioning their own flavors of inferior lossy compression as their "premier" product. In a year or so, people will realize that there are non-SDMI products that offer SUPERIOR sound quality to the industry "premier" product, and the recording industry will have once again painted themselves into a corner.
- John
Re:SUN? (Score:3)
What happend? Was Sun worried that it could no longer compete, so instead of folding, they push lawsuits.
I'm not quite sure why you're bringing this up here, but I'll respond to it anyways. The RIAA, which the poster to whom you're replying claimed (probably correctly) is suing because it can no longer compete, is in no way analogous to SUN or the "coalltion" [sic] involved in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Rather, there are some striking parallels between the RIAA and MS - both hold a monopoly in their fields, and both are pursuing/have pursued questionable (read: possibly illegal) tactics to keep said monopoly. Just as the RIAA may feel it can no longer compete against MP3s, MS felt that it might be in deep trouble if forced to compete with Netscape/Java/platform independent programs. Read the FoF, please.
What is even more sad is that AOL (who is also apart of the whining coalltion) is gobbling up all these different companies and becoming a very huge internet/media company, but Janet Reno and her henchmen are so quiet about it. Isn't AOL engaging in uncompetitive practices by now (pending merger approval) controlling a large stake in all media?
According to past interpretations of the applicable laws (Sherman Act and others), simply having a large market share does not a monopoly make, and even having a monopoly does not equate to breaking the law. It's what you do with it that matters, like leveraging that monopoly to gain market share in other areas. "Anticompetitive practices" means just that: doing things, not merely being.
(Posted at Score: 2 to be at the same level as the parent. Sorry for off-topicness.)
Re:Delaware and Corporations (Score:2)
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:3)
This is all covered in the MP3.com article that I linked to: http://www.mp3.com/news/095.html [mp3.com]
Not the same at all (Score:2)
DeCSS deals wiht the DMCA.
The mp3.com/beam-it case deals with outright copyright infringement.
Re:Read the previous post (Score:2)
I can imagine that too. When mp3.com started doing this, I think they should have renamed to mp3z.com. Maybe they can start a w4r3z server too, where they can store an "offsite backup" of commercial software, downloadable by anyone who can supply the software "key".
Sorry, but this "beaming" idea where mp3.com serves other companies' content was a really, really stupid idea. And I think that once it gets struck down, it will give MP3 overall a bad name. I wish mp3.com had not done this.
Although I agree that in general that's what RIAA/MPAA want to do, in this particular case, it looks to me like they are going after an entity for committing piracy rather than simply making a dual-use tool that could be used for piracy. As much as I hate siding with RIAA, this "beaming" thing looks totally fucked up to me.
---
Re:I don't think the RIAA will have expected this. (Score:2)
"We" was used in the broadest sense, i.e. "consumers". I didn't have a litte Web campaign and I do feel good about myself.
As you were.
Re:MP3 itself is nearly obsolete (Score:2)
At the high end, audio is often represented in 24 bits, mostly to get more headroom and resolution at the low end. 16-bit linear audio has terrible artifacts in soft sections, where you may effectively have 4-bit audio with the high bits all zero. Classical music with both loud and soft passages suffers from this problem; it doesn't affect rock much.
So any format that makes "high-end" claims ought to have more dynamic range than 16-bit audio. There's a 24-bit DVD audio format, but it's been so tied up in the copy protection mess that it hasn't been deployed yet.
Technically, it would be good to have a standardized high-end audio representation for web distribution. I don't think Softsound is it, but at least they're addressing the problem and the format is published.
Re:MP3.com's Response to RIAA (Score:2)
--
Re:Royalties (Score:3)
Looking around I see: five blank CD-Rom media. Six blank audio cassettes. 12 S-VHS tapes destined for use in a spiffy ADAT. Can anybody give me a figure on exactly how much money I was forced to give to the RIAA for these media alone, none of which is to be used to copy their artists? Also, I am curious- artists use higher quality tapes for master recordings, and in fact the S-VHS is 'required' by my ADAT. Tell me, when I buy more high-quality media, am I taxed _more_ compared to crud tapes, or the same?
"Sued by Media Whoremongers" (Score:2)
Media Whoremongers
Sony Bono is an example of a Media Whore, whose congressional seat was probably purchased by recording industry.
Michael Jackson, in his lame appearance at the Reagan whitehouse lobying for legislation which later passed and took DAT technology out of the hands of the casual consumer as well as added an "unauthorized copying tax" to blank media, is another. (I mention the Reagan whitehouse to underscore that not only the Clinton administration is at fault, but both parties, in both the congress and the white house, have behaved equally reprehensibly in the last several years.)
MGI is an example of a whoremonger, as are Sony, Time-Warner, and so on.
A "Sued by Media Whoremongers" banner would be applicable to MP3 sites, Linux DVD sites, and probably allot of other sites we aren't even aware of, who have quietly shut down for fear of economic ruin.
As a corallary, "Silenced by Media Whoremongers" would be a nice image to display when one is forced to remove their site, presumably with a link to other sites with detailed information on the underlying issues (e.g. LiVid).
thin out those numbers a bit... (Score:2)
If you own legal MP3s, either those you downloaded that were in the public domain, or those you ripped from CDs you already own... raise your hand.
Ok, now everone who raised their hand, put it down if you've downloaded any copyrighted MP3s for which you don't already own a legal copy or have some other legal right to.
There, that should reduce the class action to a much more reasonable size.
I don't agree with what the RIAA is doing, but I don't think the answer is to be hypocritical about it either. I've downloaded many MP3s for which I didn't own a legal copy. Of course I often bought the CD soon after that if I liked the songs. They don't stay on my HD very long if I don't like them. If I do like them, then I don't have much problem buying the CD (although I still think the prices are insane). Even bought a few from MP3.com from bands that I'd never heard of before visiting the site and listening to some of their MP3s.
Re:One result is near certain (Score:2)
This case isn't about copyright, it's about reigning in some politcally-connected bullies, and they're long overdue for a good spanking. Or an anti-trust investigation. But don't expect the Clinton folks to lift a finger.
I am starting to wonder who in DC would actually give a rats ass about what's going on here. Any of the current crop of viable candidates (i.e., Gore, Bush, McCain, Bradley)? Any congresscritters in particular? Anyone with any pull whatsoever?
The next LZW? (Score:2)
--Kevin
Re:Whats wrong with... (Score:2)
Bmajik dun said: just posting all of the personal information on every employee of the RIAA ? If any of them happen to get egged, defecated on, or receive bodily harm, who's really going to be that upset ? Is this moral? Is this legal ?
Most likely immoral, probably illegal, and definitely would open up the party who did it to a MASSIVE lawsuit.
Yes, there is precedent to indicate that "posting all the personal information on every employee of the RIAA" and not caring of the consequences (or, more to the point, hoping they get egged and worse) IS illegal and if someone wanted to sue there is legal precedent to do so.
Specifically, recent court cases involving an anti-abortion page known as the "Nurenberg Files" have set precedent that if one posts personal info with expectation of harm, you CAN be held liable. (The "Nurenberg Files"--as of late on a Dutch server, probably xs4all.nl--lists names and personal info, including addresses, vehicle registration info (like driver's licenses), info on family members, etc. of doctors who provide abortion services. Doctors who are injured have their names greyed out; doctors who are killed end up with slashes through their names. The admin of the site, who is involved in "Christian Militia" groups, claims that this is evidence for a "war crimes tribunal" whenever fundamentalists get sufficient control to start putting doctors on trial for performing abortions; the courts have ruled that the page is in fact a form of terroristic threatening and a court order was obtained to remove the page from Mindspring.)
I dare say that--even if you just meant them to get egged and whatnot--the RIAA would probably use the precedent set with the "Nurenberg Files" pages to get your site shut down and ask for court injunctions and large amounts of civil damages. :P
Why is MP3.com blocked? (Score:2)
Re:You're wrong on one point (Score:2)
I don't have time to look into Xing, but it's my impression that it's a commercial product. How do you know they don't pay a license fee to Fraunhofer?
Again, I'm not saying that Fraunhofer has a moral right to control MP3, and I'm not even sure they have a legal right. But it seems like they have a credible case.
In the words of Babelfish, "These programs are legal usually however not, since royalties exhaust their programmer only rarely to the institute for Fraunhofer."
Re:Why is MP3.com blocked? (Score:2)
--
Re:More Info (Score:2)
Hiliary Rosen's letter contains this particularly brazen statement:
And whatever the individual's right to use their own music, you cannot exploit that for your company's commercial gain.
Surely I need not spell out the implications to the RIAA if there were in fact any legal doctrine preventing corporations from "exploiting" music owned by individuals.
If the "individuals" you're referring to are the consumers who own legal copies of albums, then the only "exploiting" I can think of that the RIAA might be doing, aside from charging such obscene prices in the first place, is trying to convince me that I'm supposed to buy second and third copies if I want to listen to the same music at home, at work and in the car without having to carry the CD around from place to place, rather than just rip it and play the MP3s off of my Powerbook. If you mean the artists, then the argument's weakened by the fact that the artists sign the rights over to the labels, which brings up a whole other can of worms about the exploitative nature of those contracts.
The original quote seems to be arguing that the fact that the users already own copies / personal-use rights to the music does not entitle MP3.com to redistribute it. I agree that it's a sticky point, but I think (#define IANAL, #include "std_disclaimer.h", etc.) that MP3.com is in the right. If I understand Beam-it correctly, you register the fact that you already own a legitimate copy of the music (Can I assume that you're somhow required to prove it?), and then you, and only you, are able to access it. It doesn't seem that MP3.com is "distributing" it, then, any more than I am when I convert my own collection for my own (personal, exclusive, etc.) use, since nobody is using it who is not entitled to do so.
The fact that MP3.com is making a business out of it, even if they are not selling the music itself, does make it a bit more dubious, but their angle seems to be exclusively a "service". Copyright means that only the owner can make money selling copies of the work, not that only the owner can make a business in any way related to the consumer's use of the material, which seems to be the claim. That sounds more like if they would go after, say, Kenwood, for selling CD players and thus cashing in on the process whereby people listen to their CDs: "Though the individual has the right to listen to the CD he just bought from us, you cannot exploit that for your company's commercial gain by selling him the equipment on which to do so."
David Gould
Re:Libel (Score:2)
I think it was more the phrasing that got me. "This *is* theft. These people *are* stealing" (my emphasis, obviously)...
I think they have a pretty reasonable case...
The RIAA's Magic Bullet (Score:2)
The answer could be in watermarking. If they can get inaudible or low-key watermarks in audio which can be detected in the MP3 stream and are difficult to remove, they can surely embed a code in the watermark.
More probably, the magic bullet will be fired when there is a new "signed" audio standard; perhaps an additional copyright/license chunk. Encoders will write the chunk, embedding user info, date/time and the like. After a specified date, the RIAA could require all encoders (and you can bet that anything capable of writing such a chunk won't be open-source) to put in the kill code.
Or they could simply require players to fuse a "no unprotected MP3" switch after a specified date, or after a file with an encoding time after a specified date is loaded. It doesn't have to be transmitted from RIAA Headquarters in realtime.
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
Ditto for the US Gov's idea of making printers write the serial number on everything they print. I'll buy imported models that don't do that, or disable it, one way or another.
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
The DMCA is the result of illegal bribes, plain and simple. Ditto with similar laws, like the retroactive copyright length extension. And I say this not just as a user, but as an author.
I'll never shop at Amazon again, nor EToys, nor, now, any corporation who exercises their illegally gained rights from the DMCA.
(You can't just boycott a company while they have an active lawsuit, and stop when they're done, because like EToys recent exercise in judge bribing, they'll simply stop when they achieved what they needed, like kicking etoy off the net during the christmas season. If you boycott them, *never* go back, there are always alternatives.)
Re:We need to lobby against the DMCA and equivalen (Score:2)
If that material isn't usable by people, then it shouldn't be granted copyright.
Re:I stand corrected. (Score:2)
In criminal cases, it's not allowed to report on a few facts which might prejudice the case, for example in a recent trial of a doctor, no-one was allowed to report on his drug abuse in the 1970s, to avoid the jury being prejudiced. This isn't really related to the trial though, it's previous facts. The actual trial can be reported.
In a few cases, the judge may seal something, just like the DeCSS code was sealed.
In short, it's pretty much like the US system, which isn't suprising since they share common roots.