my.MP3.com Loses to RIAA
April 28, 2000 9:19 AM Subscribe
my.MP3.com Loses to RIAA In case you didn't see it on Slashdot and everywhere else.
That really blows. I'm surprised. I know someone tried to build a super db of music on my.mp3, they asked a bunch of people to upload their CDs, but it turns out only one person at a time can listen to the stream. I can't see how the RIAA would have a problem with mp3.com, people actually owned these CDs...
Why can't mp3.com just pay some ASCAP fees and continue streaming music?
posted by mathowie at 2:23 PM on April 28, 2000
Why can't mp3.com just pay some ASCAP fees and continue streaming music?
posted by mathowie at 2:23 PM on April 28, 2000
I bet the RIAA goes after used CD stores next, or people who sell used CDs on eBay. Imagine! Once you buy a CD, you're stuck with it forever... when you get sick of it, you have to throw it in the trash. That's the world that copyright law dreams about.
posted by jbushnell at 2:32 PM on April 28, 2000
posted by jbushnell at 2:32 PM on April 28, 2000
A friend of mine also did a similar thing to your friend Matt. It seems that you just couldn't listen to playlists at the same time, however if you both started streaming a song independently it would work just fine until the end, so I hear.
posted by fil! at 2:38 PM on April 28, 2000
posted by fil! at 2:38 PM on April 28, 2000
Guess what, folks?
This is *great*!
You see... in order to get to the Supreme Court, you have to lose at the trial level, and at the first appellate level, at least. Otherwise it only pertains in the federal circuit where the decision took place.
posted by baylink at 3:27 PM on April 28, 2000
This is *great*!
You see... in order to get to the Supreme Court, you have to lose at the trial level, and at the first appellate level, at least. Otherwise it only pertains in the federal circuit where the decision took place.
posted by baylink at 3:27 PM on April 28, 2000
Hmm. I don't know if it's great or not.
It strikes me--the same way it does a lot of others--though that the suit against mp3.com was wrongheaded to begin with. I never used the service myself, though my understanding is that it was never intended to be a "public" archive (like Napster), and, while I also don't know exactly what mp3.com actually did regarding security, safeguarding against pirate downloading is fairly easy (though over time it can become pretty involved). Compromised (deliberately or no) passwords can be easily detected--and simultaneous users of the same login can be automatically dropped--indeed, their IP addresses can be traced and their activity reported to their ISPs--and the password disabled; most adult pay sites use some such system; "chronic" pirating can be monitored, and those caught at such could (conceivably) be held legally responsible for copyright violations; . The best case scenario would be if mp3.com managed to convince the RIAA that it was taking adequate security measures--perhaps by even involving the RIAA directly in the process.
A bad step backward for digital music--but, maybe a good step for Indie labels and even individual artists . . . ?
posted by mrpalomar at 6:54 PM on April 28, 2000
It strikes me--the same way it does a lot of others--though that the suit against mp3.com was wrongheaded to begin with. I never used the service myself, though my understanding is that it was never intended to be a "public" archive (like Napster), and, while I also don't know exactly what mp3.com actually did regarding security, safeguarding against pirate downloading is fairly easy (though over time it can become pretty involved). Compromised (deliberately or no) passwords can be easily detected--and simultaneous users of the same login can be automatically dropped--indeed, their IP addresses can be traced and their activity reported to their ISPs--and the password disabled; most adult pay sites use some such system; "chronic" pirating can be monitored, and those caught at such could (conceivably) be held legally responsible for copyright violations; . The best case scenario would be if mp3.com managed to convince the RIAA that it was taking adequate security measures--perhaps by even involving the RIAA directly in the process.
A bad step backward for digital music--but, maybe a good step for Indie labels and even individual artists . . . ?
posted by mrpalomar at 6:54 PM on April 28, 2000
Well, it's not that simple.
The problem is that what mp3.com is probably getting nailed for is not performance rights, Matt. It's *mechanical* rights; those things that compliation producers have to negotiate with Harry Fox for when they want to make 70's albums... and you can't *get* compulsory licenses for mechanicals.
Most of the negotiation is centralized through the Harry Fox Agency (call them the MPAA of the music business -- I understand they can be a pain in the *ass*, though not personally), and storing music in a retrieval system, regardless of the performance rights, is a separate issue.
I don't know *how* live365 deals with this.
The entire industry is being rewritten by the technology... and it's a *very* old, entrenched, sot-in-it's-ways industry; I couldn't even speculate how it will come out.
posted by baylink at 8:39 PM on April 28, 2000
The problem is that what mp3.com is probably getting nailed for is not performance rights, Matt. It's *mechanical* rights; those things that compliation producers have to negotiate with Harry Fox for when they want to make 70's albums... and you can't *get* compulsory licenses for mechanicals.
Most of the negotiation is centralized through the Harry Fox Agency (call them the MPAA of the music business -- I understand they can be a pain in the *ass*, though not personally), and storing music in a retrieval system, regardless of the performance rights, is a separate issue.
I don't know *how* live365 deals with this.
The entire industry is being rewritten by the technology... and it's a *very* old, entrenched, sot-in-it's-ways industry; I couldn't even speculate how it will come out.
posted by baylink at 8:39 PM on April 28, 2000
« Older | Bad news for the Twins Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm very disappointed in this ruling. This will probably serve as a precedent in many other RIAA legal battles.
I don't know how the appeal process works, but hopefully something good will come out of it.
If Mp3.com does have to pay all the damages (unlikely, they'll probably settle with the RIAA) it would be completely ridiculous (see article text).
posted by fil! at 9:21 AM on April 28, 2000