Shielding MP3 Databases From Copyright Violations 132
Lost Soul writes: "Wired has an article on a
new law being proposed in the United States House of Representatives to immunize databases of songs a la mp3.com from copyright violations that are now plaguing the company and giving recording companies licensing fees they don't deserve. Please signal your support for this bill to your local representatives." It would protect databases that people could get access to if they had already purchased the CDs, as my.mp3.com was set up to do.
Clear up the license.... (Score:1)
Re:How much does it cost to record an album? (Score:1)
Better dodgy than stodgy.
While I can understand your aversion to bedrooms, I would be personally interested in any recordings from the future. Furthermore, I think the simple fact that the artist had access to a bedroom in the future would make their work worth giving a listen, since most artists seem incapable of recording in bedrooms anywhere except in the past or present...
0x0000
Re:This is a good first step... (Score:1)
Write to congress!!!! (Score:1)
Re:Mp3 Business Method Patent (Score:2)
the only problem is that they didn't invent the idea - like everything on their site they copied it from another 'innovative' site.
Stilll prior art doesn't seem to have stopped the patent office in the past - so maybe there's still hope for tecyhnology plagiarists like mp3.com
validating the owner (Score:1)
"...provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording..."
Proof? Like a digital signature? Lets use the CueCat encryption for this!
Re:Sure, it makes sense (Score:2)
I guess I just don't get your analogy. Why do we keep trying to create analogies between physical property and digital property? Why don't we just accept that they are two different things that need to be dealt with differently? Prohibiting a company from making a database of music in order to allow people (who have legally purchased the right to listen to that music) to listen to the music they have purchased wherever they like, after they have proven that they have purchased that right, is asinine. It's just the record companies throwing their weight around and trying to further limit how we can make use of the music that we purchase, as well as extorting money which they are not due. Yes, it's often good that the law is slow to change, but when we see that it needs to change, we should certainly encourage it. That's why I'm sending a similar letter to my congresscritters.
Re:Techically (Score:1)
Regardless, they lost on legal grounds. They just managed to minimize the damage by settling with the rest of the companies.
but its already legal for them (Score:1)
Re:Oh, this is just wonderful. (Score:2)
Unfortunately the newcomer (MP3) has been... (Score:2)
So the new guy on the block, who found the path and showed the way, gets the shaft. The establishment who fought it every step of the way follows the formula and gets the money.
On the side, a little note in Courtney Love's diatribe seemed to indicate that artists don't get any royalties from "clubs". She stated that she feared that artists would get no royalties from the Napster suits, because the industry would consider Napster a "club". Is this true? By participating in a "CD-club" are we depriving the artists of income, and sending ALL of the money to the poor, starving recording houses?
"...royalties they don't deserve..." (Score:1)
If the recording companies don't deserve money for promoting and selling recording than who does.?
Yes they're greedy (the recording companies), but I don't see ANYONE/ doing anything about it, and they do pay the artist, something NAPSTER users ususally ARE NOT doing. All those people using napster who claim the big companies are ripping off artists are stealing more harming the artists more than the companies that risk money investing in them (by providing capital to record._)
They're lots and lots of small labels out there, and they all seem the same. You think if they're was a better way artists would flock too it. I haven't seen a single major musical player yet come out of MP3.com. (not that they're aren't good artists on that company.)
That being said, NAPSTER doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it has all those users , and what it says about peoples respect for other peoples art/music. I think people should be individiually responsible... I used to think the semi / technically savvy were a little more enlightened . They're not and its kinda sad.
Whats new about this way of distibution is the speed. It used to be copy at 1x then 2x tape dubbers, now music is being swapped anonymously over a network. Times have changed, and I think we will see new laws coming up shortly to cover this stuff.
That being said those that work often don't have time to scour the net for music, its cheapper to buy music still. (1/2 of my time is worth.....). I think streaming mp3 is a great thing to suck bandwidth at work, like radio but since radio has gone way downhill and I don't get reception in my building its cds or that.
ISBN wouldn't work... (Score:1)
There's another way I'd considered, but this keeps the service from being free. It involves sending in the actual CD, along with the cost of shipping it back. Since you can't send in a legal CD if you don't have it, that's about as good as you can get (the CD could have been stolen, but thanks to presumption of innocence that can't be taken into consideration).
Another, possibly equally or more suitable way, would be to send/fax in a photocopy of the disc itself, ot the liners. This has been used in the proprietary software industry for a long time to determine ownership (usually for purposes of upgrade discounts). It can be circumvented, but it's generally more trouble than it's worth to do so.
Any thoughts?
----------
Re:What they're really after... (Score:1)
Not a contradiction in the slightest...
The primary objective is to protect My.MP3
The FTP thing is purely a side effect... and posably the fullest extent of freedom that we'd get from this thing..
Your right in the notion that this is made to LOOK like it's giving us something when it's really just pushing an agenda...
About the paranoia thing... we ALL get parnaoid.. ehhh it's not a bad thing really... Hay I can expect you'll be there when they come to take me away for speaking my mind.. no matter HOW much you disagree with me... And I'll be there if they ever come for you...
Being paranoid about ones freedoms is the healthyest thing...
Anyway... Your right about WHAT they are doing but not WHY they are doing it...
It sounds stupid but they beat you to death becouse they want to protect you from being beaten to death...
People like you need to come along and say "Thats Fsking stupid" and well.. you are...
Anyway... Sorry for being so mean and evil.. but I am and thats all there is....
On yeah... "It dosn't protect Napster" "So"
Ehh thats kinda what the jist of this was... "Ohh finnaly Napster is saved" not even slightly... Woulda been nice... Of course you knew better.. but for the benifit of others I thought I'd mention it...
CD Id numbers (Score:1)
I don't know that much about those IDs but a verification system similar to what myMP3.com uses might sufice.
This would be hacked in about 2 days and soon people would be swapping cd ids, but nothing seems foolproof..
what else could you use. An Encrypted licence number with your music CD? This is starting to sound like Circut Cities ill fated DIV-X DVD player that charged per use....
Re:How will this work? (Score:1)
Re:The thing that bothers me... (Score:2)
Let's see... how is it theft to compile a database (presumably from purchased CDs), and then allow people to stream that music wherever they happen to be, but only after they have proven that they have purchased the right to listen to the music. Sounds to me like something that should be perfectly legal, but that the record industry doesn't like, and they are, once again, trying to control what people do with the music they purchase after the sale. If you and I both buy the same CD, and then we meet and I hand you my copy and you give me your copy, have we broken the law? That's essentially what my.mp3.com was doing. I think the RIAA's argument is ridiculous.
Re:Clear up the license.... (Score:1)
If they already own it, it should not be considered distribution.
BTW, where do you draw the line in this list, and why?:
1) I rip my own track and play it on my player.
2) I rip the the track, upload it to my private ftp space, and play it from work.
3) An identical track is ripped in advance, placed in my private ftp space, played from work.
In all cases, I have paid for the track. Why is this a problem?
Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:1)
So, if the said scan takes place, don't they have to exclude all copies of Original Prankster.mp3 since it's authorized by Sony for distribution on the 'net?
This is a good first step... (Score:1)
Weird Pics [64.65.12.73]
Broadcasting vs Distribution via the internet? (Score:1)
Was MPPP considered broadcasting the music in the final judgement?
thats an interesting question and I can't find the answer.
As an interesting aside, I think there is an extra fee placed on Digital Audio Tapes (DAT) that somehow goes to the music business.
I think canada has that fee on blank CDs.
Does anyone know what other fees we're paying for media?
I guess it doesn't matter... (Score:1)
Re:Lobbying - Law & DiMA (Score:1)
I am all for (hell, I'm calling for) more lobbyists representing the tech producer/user in Washington, D.C., but it is counter productive to give credit to a group that is not accomplishing anything - it takes attention away from those who may be putting together viable efforts.
MP3.com, not my favorite company, did hire a lobbyist to draft sample legislation, and had the Pres and CEO on heavy rotation in House and Senate offices around the hill asking someone to introduce this bill. There was no pressure, or even a whisper, from any other source in support of legislation like this.
Tech users need to get more organized, the only tech lobbies here now are the companies (and they just want H1-B), and groups like the EFF (good group - no real lobby) and the Center for Democracy in Technology (nice, smart guys but not much direct policy input). The closest we have to a representative is the Consumer Electronics groups, because they want to make what the MPAA, RIAA, etc. want to ban, and they want to make it without restrictions. They're not perfect allies (few businesses are), but at least they have their nose to the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
Speaking of horseshit, did you mean semantical or symbolical?
Even a computer can't tell the difference between my CD and theirs, it is - bit for bit - identical.
So what? In a digital world all copies are bit-for-bit identical. It has nothing to do with copyright issues.
And, as a nitpick, two
You'd be better of explaining to us how this physical discrepancy is at all relevant.
Which physical discrepancy? We are talking about a legal discrepancy here. Your copy and their copy are legally different even though they are bit-for-bit identical. What's so hard to understand about this? My copy of, say, Baldur's Gate 2 and yours are identical, but they are legally different: I can play mine whenever I want and I cannot play yours without your permission. The whole concept of copyright is based on the idea that some copies are more equal than others.
Kaa
Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:1)
MyMP3.com licensing terms (Score:1)
What they're really after... (Score:1)
... is to have all kinds of databases centrally registered by government agencies such as the NSA, CIA and FBI. You can bet that the first condition of this law is to have each and every user and piece of data registered with the appropriate agencies, for them to look at and construct profiles from.
And yet again, we'll be cheering them on because on the surface it looks like a win for the "fair use" doctrine. Wake up people! The government exists solely to increase its own powers, not to benefit its citizens. They'd love to be able to have every database in this country on file and available at the click of a button, and when they can play people and organisations against each other so that people want this to happen, they have won.
From here it's just a small step to identity cards, continuous surveillance and a police state controlled by the abuse of legislation designed to let government "protect" the rights of the people. This is America and we don't need to stand up for this blatent removal of our rights, we can fight back using our Second Amendment freedoms! We need to make the people aware of the dangers that KKKlinton and his cronies pose our freedom before it is too late and we're crushed under the boots of our "protectors".
Re:Clear up the license.... (Score:1)
methinks you are being a bit on the too legal end of the stick here. i grant you that there is a great body of law over a great number of things. some of this law is good, some of this law is bad, some of this law is antiquated. in theory under the common law, i can still have the right to trial by combat as an example. (please see coke, etc. if you need the reference) the reality is that the RIAA and the MPA can either embrace and have an influence in the control of the new method of distribution (in the process getting the rights of the copyholders recognized and rewarded) or put the entire process of copyright protection in a position where it will be totally ignored. distribution to folks who can demonstrate that they have paid the copyright holder for the right to utilize the media adds value to the copyright holder, since it is being performed at no cost to them and encourages the purchase of their media. no argument about the right to payment. no argument about the distribution to folks who have not paid.
Life is Rough All Over (Score:5)
----[%snip]----
To : jmoakley@mail.house.gov
Cc :
Attchmnt:
Subject : Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000
----- Message Text -----
Dear Honorable John Joseph Moakley,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000.
You have have heard about MP3.com recently losing a lawsuit to the RIAA. The practice in question was MP3.com members scanning in their legally-purchased discs (to prove ownership) and MP3.com would then allow that particular member to listen to their songs wherevery they wish. I would like to emphasize that MP3.com required that you prove you owned the original. Unfortunately, MP3.com lost because MP3.com's copy is not the same physical copy as the customer's copy and is therefore illegal.
If this is difficult to fathom it is because it doesn't really make any sense.
The Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000 would allow a company to legally create a musical database:
""Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his floor statement introducing the new legislation." - Wired.com
I encourage you to support this bill and bring legislation up to speed with the technical capabilities of the internet.
Thank you,
Jason Desjardins
----[%snip]----
My .02,
Sad isn't it (Score:1)
BCA # (Score:2)
Have You Been Following The Story? (Score:4)
The music studios don't deserve royalties in the my.mp3.com case. In case you didn't know Mp3.com debuted a free service called Beam-It at my.mp3.com [slashdot.org]. This service enabled people to play CDs from an online collection if they had previously proved that they own the CDs by having the CD in the CD-ROM drive and registering it.
Somehow the record labels felt that MP3.com owed them money for broadcasting music on the net without paying them licence fees similar to what Radio stations pay. This ignores the fact that all the people listening to the music already own the CDs being played. Of course all the members of the RIAA filed suit and MP3.com settled with most of them for about $20 million a piece except for Universal that pressed on with a lawsuit and won over $100 million.
The my.mp3.com will return but will be a pay service to offset the damage from the lawsuits. During Napster hearings certain Senators including Orrin Hatch realized that the RIAA was abusing copyright laws in an attempt to maintain a monopoly [slashdot.org] on legitimate means of digital distribution of music. The new laws that are pending indicate that Congress feels that the RIAA did not and does not deserve payment when people are accessing music they already own from an online site.
Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
Rich Boucher (Score:2)
I don't see anything specific on his website, but I recall reading elsewhere that Boucher was instrumental in the legislation that allowed the Internet to legally be used for non-research purposes. So he's at least partially responsible for the commercialized Internet of today, as opposed to the elite academic community of ten years ago. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, I guess.
Congressman Payoff (Score:2)
--
Re:How will this work? (Score:3)
I believe that is intended to be vague so it could be interpreted by the courts, probably purposely so.
As for how? Well, click-wrap licenses seem to work for software, so why not for a digital music locker...
Personally, I feel the technologically sound process that My.MP3.com used would be sufficient.
Oh get off it (Score:2)
What the fuck are you smoking anyway?
If the NSA wants to know who I am, they're going to want more than my goddamned CD LIST! Do you think "Big Brother" cares if I listen to Metallica or Dr. Dre or Yanni or any other suckfest of a CD?
My advice to you is to go take all your little guns, and go into a cave somewhere in the Ozarks with all the other radical right-wing crackheads. Or you can lay off the crack and get your conspiracy theories out of your head.
It had to be said.
--
The thing that bothers me... (Score:4)
Could the sneaky members of club-RIAA have planned it so they'd destory MP3.com while it was illegal, then make it legal and make money on the exact same idea?
Re:How much does it cost to record an album? (Score:2)
Multitrack recording:
- 70s- open-reel tape consoles, $50,000 (?) for 16-24 tracks 30 ips
- 90s- ditto at more like $20,000, first digital multitrack but _seriously_ inadequate $50,000 again.
- Now- 20-24 bit minimum, ADAT available in this class for under $3000, nonlinear DAW recording in a similar pricerange not counting the computer and disk costs. That's for something like Digi Pro Tools: ask the GIS crew about that.
Mixing- 70s- mixing console $10,000? Less tendency for hugeness and a zillion busses.
- 90s- mixing console $10-50,000. This is where huge consoles really took off- also, lower end consoles developed a terrible cheapness and noisiness, moving into the consumer zone. At this time digital consoles were useless even though they cost the earth- early digital consoles featured 16 bit busses and NO dithering. Any home PC can do better these days with the proper software.
- Now- analog consoles same as 90s unless you build your own and know your way around audiophile design- low end's a third as cheap as it used to be, but still very cheesy. Digital consoles becoming available with 24, 36 or even higher bit depths on the busses. DAW a mixed bag- you can do work with deep busses and good software for under $10,000, you can kluge the same thing for under $1000 if you know what you're doing, if you can build circuitry you can get in there with analog gear and match the fluidity but _not_ the noise floor (never underestimate the 'bit depth' of analog- no rounding errors at all, and dithering becomes unnecessary- dithering is actually a type of noise at about -110db!). More than ever it's WHAT you know not what you SPEND- demand is turning back towards high end audio characteristics, and industry standards are slipping. Which brings us to-
Mastering and Release- 70s- ouch! Good luck getting anywhere _near_ this stage. Disc mastering equipment in the millions of dollars, owned only by mastering houses- you simply could not play in this area, not even the recording studios did. There was never a consumer market for vinyl disc mastering.
- 90s- even more ouch! While older equipment would pass into the hands of semipros and rich amateurs for mere hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps less), while the Philips cassette became widely available, the top end continued to skyrocket, developing techniques like multiband compression to saturate the tonality of the music while suppressing unruly peaks. The first CD mastering equipment was staggeringly expensive as well. It was an era where there was a huge gap between 'bedroom recording and mastering' and the commercial stuff- you simply couldn't get anywhere near the commercial quality on cassette 4-tracks and 'mastering' to a dubbing cassette deck. For the first time you could do it all yourself, but the technology just wasn't there for other than hobbyist use or demos.
- Now- it gets _interesting_. People are used to assuming that you _must_ be able to spend millions to get state of the art sound- but, $200 CD-R burners? Free or shareware software that mixes and edits in 24 bit depths? You can get software for _free_ today, right now, that substantially beats what was the state of the art in the mid-90s. The technology is there- intensely there. Processes like multiband compression can be replicated in software... everything that used to take $50,000 mastering house equipment is becoming available in software. There's one major exception- monitoring- you _cannot_ do professional mastering work over Yamaha NS-10s, much less PC multimedia speakers or headphones. By the same token, amplification has to be terrific. And even HERE it's becoming accessible! If you aren't fussy, you could get one of the high-end multimedia systems- for instance, the Klipsch Promedia, which can handle substantial monitoring volumes without distorting- and that would be good enough to work with, at under $1000.
Summary Obviously, there's a need for more information out there- at this point it's not money that limits a home-recording musician (if you can get a few thousand dollars over the course of a few years you can assemble the required tools), it's information. You could say, 'get a 20-bit ADAT or a computer-based DAW with at least 24 bit mix busses and a CD burner' but that's like saying 'download EGCS, download the kernel sources- great, now write clustering software for i-openers over infrared ports!'. Mixing is as much a craft as an art and treating it like Jackson Pollock treated a canvas WILL result in dodgy mixes that are obviously not professional- and mastering has long been considered a black art, just as much as writing tricky device drivers! The information also tends to be hoarded, but with the Internet this breaks down a bit- for instance, I've read numerous rants by mastering engineers on how the major labels are getting into an arms race with compression and loudness, which is ruining the enjoyable quality of the sound (think later Britney Spears, and listen to the actual sounds being used- that's ruthlessly overcompressed).So the final answer would be somewhere between two and twenty thousand dollars for the equipment required to produce the high quality recording (some of which you may already have, like a computer and CD burner), BUT it will either cost you a couple years of determined study or another two to twenty thousand dollars to hire someone who can use that gear properly. It's quite like having precision parts machined with a large and powerful machine shop, routers and lathes and stuff- sure if you have the gear you _could_ do it, the question to ask is if you know what you're doing with machine tools. With studios it's 'do you know what you're doing with recording/mastering tools'. The tools themselves are more and more affordable, and even the information is becoming more accessible, but you have to be willing to learn- it's a discipline as demanding as programming, in its own way.
Does that answer the question? *creak of dead-from-boredom people falling over in a shower of dust* ;)
They are copying someone else's idea. (Score:1)
Re:What they're really after... (Score:1)
Re:The thing that bothers me... (Score:1)
The first day of what's left of your life (Score:2)
I think you may be confusing what's moral with what's theologically popular. Teenage sex isn't a problem. It's a reality. Disease and teen pregnancy are health problems, which condom use could go a long way towards solving.
So how does your analogy fit with what he said? I mean, unless you think both Napster and condoms keep kids from using the black tar heroin or smoking the crack or something. Then I guess you have a point. Sort of. Or not.
When was there honesty, again? I keep looking for it in theology and history books and I'm coming up empty...
-jpowers
Ok.. I'm calling you on it... (Score:2)
You show me where in the judge's ruling he says any of the things you claim.
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
"MP3.com got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it. Looks like a stupid law. "
My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?
My .02,
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
Come on! It's trivial.
A consumer, having bought a CD, has certain rights with regard to the music on this CD. For example he can copy it to a different medium, like a file residing on a remote server. This right comes with the CD he has bought and he cannot just transfer this right to somebody else while leaving the CD for himself. Now, MP3.com said: we have the right to make copies of CDs for the consumers. Bzzzt, sorry, you do not. The consumer himself can -- I can upload my mp3s to, say, iDrive, and get them from there anytime I choose. But MP3.com does not have any rights with regard to my copy of the CD.
Basically, MP3.com said: all copies are the same and there's no difference. The court reminded it that while there may be no informational difference, there is a big legal difference.
Kaa
Effectively Emailing your Congressman (Score:3)
Having worked on the Hill over the summer, here's some advice for those of you planning on contacting your elected official:
a) Write them a snail-mail letter. There's a sneaking suspicion that one person is sending them all those form emails.
b) If you do want to write an email, include your NAME and ADDRESS. Without your NAME and ADDRESS, you might not be a constituent, they don't really waste the time to figure out the difference.
To contact your representative: Write-rep [house.gov]
To contact your senator: It's not as easy, go find [senate.gov] their e-mail address.Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:1)
Write to your Representative! (Score:4)
Your rights as a music buying consumer are at stake. If you think the recording industry has entirely too much power, tell Congress! If you think Hemos should be banned from the internet, tell Congress!
Most issues before congress are decided by members voting in the way they think will get them re-elected, without any input from the constituency. The saddest thing about this is how easy it is to let your views be known.
People all over the world participate in their own governments at levels we in the U.S. are privileged to but don't. Participation in the governing process is a privilege. Failure to use it could be failure to keep it.
If you think G.W. is the greatest thing since sliced bread, register to vote before October 8 and vote in November. Similarly, if you think G.W. is a cocaine snorting, S&L crashing, frat boy weasel, register and vote. If you don't vote you have no right to complain when the candidate you loathe most gets elected.
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
Re:What they're really after... (Score:2)
You do read the news right? Even on places like /. we see the trends which are leading towards government oppression and the loss of all of our freedoms.
If information wants to be free, power wants to grow. Certainly, there are trends to increased government control. Some of this is driven by finances. UCITA, DMCA, etc. aren't so much concerned with power as they are with money. Some of it is driven by the best of intentions. Pat Bradey truly believes that banning guns would make the US a better place. Recognizing the creeping erosion of our rights is one thing. Creating a sinister conspiracy where every new law, no matter how innocent seeming, has an ulterior motive designed to advance the cause of government oppression is something else entirely. That IS paranoid.
The government exists to protect.. The way it is done leaves a great deal to be desired.. but thats the main idea.
No, the government exists to govern a political unit, usually a country. Protecting its assets is merely good sense for such a body and means no more than me defending my home against a burglar.
That depends upon your definition of exists. The US government was created by the US Constitution. It was created by the founding fathers with the purpose of protecting the rights of the new nation. Over time, it has drifted far from its original purpose. The checks and ballances have been only partially successful. We in the US still enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom compared. But that freedom IS threatened, and the powers of the government have been hugely expanded.
Re:Congressman Payoff (Score:1)
Anyone wanna guess how many people the RIAA are going to pay off to make sure it doesn't get into the books?
Gonna be some even richer congressmen before long.
Each congress person should be paid the average income of their state (or the country) to force them to better the state of the nation.
Sure, it makes sense (Score:1)
Imagine that you order a milkshake from an ice cream shop, and they make them two-at-once. One half of the batch is given to you, and the other half of the batch is kept behind the counter.
You can do whatever you want with your milkshake, but you can't touch the other one--even though they're the "exact same milkshake."
Of course, the "milkshake" here is bottomless, but the law is filled with this kind of grandfathered sillyness. Blame the world for changing, not the law for remaining just what we want it (slow to change.)
(And no, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not a doctor, a politician, or a programmer. Of course, I might be a God...)
Re:What they're really after... (Score:1)
See, the concept that's causing the problem here is that I was pointing out a troll, not trolling myself. Thus, my post was not the one which should have been moderated "Troll". I even pointed that out in my post, but apparently actually reading before moderating is no longer a requirement.
Or perhaps I should have included the magic words "I'll probably get moderated down as a troll for this, but...".
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
I'll give you one more chance and even repeat myself verbatim:
It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical? Don't worry, nobody is reading this, I just want to see if you can explain why I shouldn't be able to prove to MP3.com that I own Bjork's "Post" then listen to their copy of the same album. Please.
My .02,
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
Open your mind and re-read carefully.
You has certain rights. MP3.com does not have these rights even if you prove to it that you have them. Sounds logical to me.
It's not your right to listen that is in question. It is just that MP3.com has no right to broadcast the music to you, even if you have the right to listen to it.
Kaa
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:2)
Damn Kaa... I'm not sure if you were trolling the poor guy or what. That was a pretty pathetic performance though. You still didn't explain why the law is logical. You just reiterated it and said that it sounds logical to you. If I purchase an album, that currently gives me the right to listen to the album and any copies of the album that I make. What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to MP3.com that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server. If I have purchased the right to listen to the album, what difference does it make whether the bits come from my CD, a copy of my CD, my server, their server, or anyplace else, as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album? You have done nothing to explain this, and that is why you frustrated zencode so badly. At least he was polite and patient.
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
You are still confused. It's completely legal for you to listen to whatever MP3.com streams to you. Again, your right to listen is not in question.
What the court said was illegal (and agree with its interpretation of current laws, but not necessarily with the laws themselves) was for MP3.com to stream the music from its servers. It's important to understand the difference between the right to send and the right to receive. One does not automatically create the other. You have a right to listen, but that right to listen does NOT automatically create a right to transmit for MP3.com
You can also think about that in this way: when MP3.com bought the CDs that they used to make the online library, they were bound by the standard copyright law. Specifically, the law prohibits them from broadcasting/performing/disseminating/etc. the music on these CDs. Now you having the right to listen to a CD does not change anything in MP3.com's obligations under the copyright law.
as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album?
You have the right to listen to your. But that right by itself does not give some other entity the right to send this music to you.
If you don't find this logical, I am sorry. What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
Kaa
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
You keep saying it's not my right, it's not MP3.com's right, but you have not yet supported why that should be so. Worse, you've tried to pass of "just because" as an argument.
You can have the last word on this, I'll reply if you substantiate anything seriously.
My .02,
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:2)
What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
That's exactly what I meant. If I have the right to receive such streams of music, then why should MP3.com not have the right to send them to me? It makes no sense. While the interpretation of the law may be logical, the law itself is not.
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:1)
Re:What they're really after... (Score:1)
Re:what if... (Score:1)
Selling it would be as easy as buying it--you just register "selling this CD", or even go to the database, bring up your entry, and delete that CD.
RIAA (or whoever) could even justify it as a way to gather consumer info... and the consumers benefit by being able to give feedback about the music they don't like, and that they do.
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:3)
Ahem. A consumer who owns a CD can legally store it on the net and downstream it for personal use right now without any further legislation.
MP3.com got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it.
Looks like a stupid law. It's like having your left ear itch and making a law that allows you to scratch only your left ear and nothing else. The courts will later interpret this law to mean that you can scratch your left ear a reasonable number of times per day, and other courts will say that the word "reasonable" means "five".
If your right ear starts to itch, though, sorry. You are out of luck.
Kaa
Lawyer: potentiall retroactive (Score:2)
Also, I've never heard an MP#, nor do I have an interest in having them streamed to me.
A quick note: the ban in the Constitution on "ex post facto" laws--those passed after the fact--only applies to criminal cases. If the law were passed quickly, and written to do so, it *could* apply to pending litigation.
Whether or not that would be a good idea in this case is left as an excercise for the reader
Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:2)
Where is the evidence? (Score:1)
Re: b) No artist is REQUIRED to deal with the RIAA (Score:2)
For that matter, nobody is REQUIRED to buy pasteurized, homogenized milk. But just try to buy any other kind. You can't.
Yes, an artist can try and distribute music on a minor label, or by him/her self. But by that path the artist is also guaranteed to remain small-time. If you want ANY chance at wide distribution or airplay, you MUST sign with an RIAA member.
There's even less choice than trying to buy a PC without Windows.
Re:the bad men... (Score:1)
Digital music is only going to take money out of the hands of those who depend on CD sales. If you go to MP3.com, how many musicians put their music online with NO remuneration? Someday, one of those musicians are going to be the next Metallica, or Ozzy, or Britney Spear (ick..)
The artists have to embrace it, or they are going to get left behind. I for one, am sick of paying an extra 5 dollars to get a fricking CD, when a CD is cheaper to manufacture than a tape. I'm through. I haven't bought a CD since my.mp3.com went to trial. Why subsidize an industry's lawyers, when I disagree with them 100%.
I used my.mp3.com with pleasure. the RIAA ruined that for me. I owned every CD I put up there, about 150 or so, some I don't really listen to anymore. Screw them, and screw their artists. I'll just make copies off the radio, MP3 em, and listen to em off of my webserver somewhere.
FUCK THE RIAA AND MPAA.
Grrr....
Interesting precedent... (Score:2)
FWIW, this is H,R. 5275, submitted 25-Sep-2000 it seems to the Committee on the Judiciary. (from the Congressional Record [gpo.gov].
But why, one must ask, does it only cover music? The same logic theoretically should apply to all dual-media creative works, such as books (at least for methods that preserve exact formatting, like PDF and PS, in constrast to ASCII text), visual arts (paintings as JPEGs, and so forth), and likewise.
We may not have book-digitizing services now (to my knowledge, but I haven't been looking), but when PDAs or other devices are developed that ARE pleasing for books, or if good-enough laptops become common -- then there may be a potential market.
This seems overly... tailored, shall we say.
Re:aww (Score:1)
Re:Effectively Emailing your Congressman (Score:1)
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000
It is very concise and well written as others have already pointed out. Read it over before you send your vote of confidence to your congressmen.
-----------------
Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:1)
Finally some bands are starting to use the power of the internet instead of just complaining about it!
Re:How will this work? (Score:2)
Otherwise, it would seem to be an impossible problem.
A has a valid, legitimate CD bought from, say, Tower Records or a NRM.
B can, among a nearly infinite variety of possible actions,
1) buy the CD from A online, perhaps even pseudo-anonymously;
2) buy the CD in person, using cash rather than credit or something else that generates a trail,
3) buy the CD from A, who surreptiously burned a copy (which he kept and uses) and duplicated anything else that came with it
4) break into A's apartment and steal the CD and all associated materials,
In case 1, the only copy is legal, but it wasn't noted in any registry (of which I doubt any exists...). Electronic payment probably generated a trail, 'tho.
In case 2, ditto, minus trail but plus probable memories of faces.
In case 3, A and B *both* have copies, plus all the materials that may be needed to "authenticate" legal ownership. Thing is, at most one of them IS legal. So who's MPPP or its ilk going to trust?
In case 4, B now has everything required to authenticate and there are no other identical CDs running around to cause (in theory) serial number problems, yet it's an illegal copy. Unless A recorded all such unique IDs, reported them to police as stolen, and then this information is made available to MPPP or its ilk... Hm.
And we don't, say, have stores custom-burning CDs tied to one's retinal scan or other biometrics (which admittedly would make this verification problem a LOT easier, but cripple end-user sales).
So one hopes that "proof" would be interpreted a bit less rigorously than *absolute incontrovertible proof*.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
Re:Clear up the license.... (Score:1)
The licence terms are very clear and there is a HUGE body of law regarding them.
That is WHY Mp3.com lost.
Under the law you have every right to do as you describe. Note that the RIAA * did not* come after you or anyone like you. Rip away, there's no law to stop you.
It is, however, illegal to DISTRIBUTE such rips to other people, whether they own the material in question or not. You can rip your own, and they can rip their own. You can't pass them back and forth. Broadcasting, whether it is over the radio or the internet, is a form of distribution.
Mp3.com had no right to distribute under the law.
Period.
How much does it cost to record an album? (Score:1)
Several Points (Score:3)
2) Include your full home mailing address - you will only be logged ("Senator, we've gotten 1,200 letters this month encouraging you to support the MP3 bill") and receive a reply if they are sure you are a constituent.
3) This bill will not pass this session (which is supposed to end in a week, but will likely last a few weeks longer.) It just doesn't work that way - If Hatch or Wyden had introduced a Senate bill at the same time there might have been a chance, but it still would have been unlikely. The legislative process is meant to encourage sober
4) To all those who seem to think this is part of some NSA conspiracy, I think you may have left your aluminum foil hat at (the) home today
sorry, but this is a fairly well written first step toward the kind of public policy that has been advocated on
5) Laws are written in a generally vague way - open to courts interpretation - because if you write them very specifically, there will be loopholes - it is almost impossible when dealing with a human based system, to write iron rules. Human beings are flexible and creative - either way we will have court interpretation, be being vague we insure deference to "legislative intent" (in this case, to allow MP3.com and its' followers to keep doing what they do).
6)
OF Course.... This also Helps other Companies (Score:2)
Myplay.com of course are the innovators on the whole online storage (beating mp3.com by 6 months). I guess that if this kind of legislation goes through this makes them even more legal in the eyes of the Music Industry.
Personally.... mp3.com can go the way pof the dodo for all I care - I've never liked them.
Re:Life is Rough All Over (Score:2)
-----[%snip]-----
I have followed with interest your dealings with the popular internet music sites Napster and MP3.com. While I do not advocate piracy I feel that you have been somewhat heavy-handed filing law suits left, right and center. I also feel, personally, that these law suits are unnecessary. After all, having read through the list of artists on your web site I doubt that anyone with any sort of musical interest would be the slightest bit inclined to download the popularist pap they tend to release.
-----[%snip]-----
As posted to the form [riaa.com] on the contact page of the RIAA site less than 2 minutes ago.
Re:aww (Score:2)
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 [efront.com]
--
Re:aww (Score:2)
www.netrecoverysolutions.com/mp3.ht ml [netrecoverysolutions.com]
--
Yes!! (Score:2)
Record companies have no right to tell thier customers how and when/why/where to use the music they purchased.
Once anything I paid for enters my house, its MINE
Just like the electricity I pay for, PGE doesnt say "your a mad scientist, dont use our electricity to make evil experiments", they just charge me more =)
If this bill passes it will be one step forward to getting the rest of the political system caught up int he digital world.
Next step, get the patenting office caught up as well and ban patents of frivelous things such as One Clock Shopping and shit like that.
Only one question, are there any websites set up that have forms, and send the form out to the state represetitive of our choosing? If not, who wants to help me set one up?
If you want to help me set up a form for theis MP3 Bill thatll have a premade, or variable form field that lets you choose what state your in, then send your plea to your corrosponding state representetive, mail me, brentj@servuhome.net
I think that would be a real effective way of getting people easier access to thier state officials, and will probably get a bigger show!
Just my 2 cents though.
Systems Administrator
Servu Networks
http://www.servuhome.net
Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:2)
Cool eh?
How will this work? (Score:4)
How does one transmit "proof" of "lawful possession," and what proof is sufficient? Clearly, proof of possession is understandable, but "lawful possession?"
The Horror! (Score:2)
RIAA (Score:2)
Why we all don't read Wired (Score:2)
If a huge portion of the actricles on Slashdot link to Wired, why the hell don't we all just read Wired?
Last time I checked (60 seconds ago), Wired didn't have threaded discussions.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Re:The thing that bothers me... (Score:2)
Mp3 Business Method Patent (Score:2)
- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
Re:What they're really after... (Score:2)
Group Captain Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Mandrake: Aye, no, no. I don't Jack.
Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? Its incredibly obvious isn't it. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first...become...well, develop this theory?
Ripper: Well, I, uh...I...I...first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Mandrake: Hmm.
Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue...a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I...I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Mandrake: Hmm.
Ripper: I can assure you that it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh...women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Mandrake: No.
Ripper: But I...I do deny them my essence.
Law is way too specific. (Score:2)
But what happens in a few years when I want a similar service for my DVD's? When I'm travelling it'd be nice to have my whole DVD collection availiable to me on airplanes or at hotels.
Really, the law should have been aimed at any digital copy of a work you own. Artwork, music, movies, sculpture (captured in 3D of course), scents, software.
Perhaps that is too much for the government to handle for now. With any luck this bill will set a precedent enabling bills with more vision to come forth - I just hope I get to see it pass before I have a longing for My.DVD.com.
what if... (Score:2)
what would happen if we had to register our music in a way similar to the way we're supposed to register our software?
If there were some easy way to register, such as an automatic registration with credit card purchases, maybe something like this could work.
But I suppose somebody would have to handle the owner database (Record labels perhaps).... and it would probably make it a pain in the ass to purchase/sell used music.
Re:Ownership of CD/Tapes = Right to listen (Score:2)
Actually I kind of like this idea now. I can just see someone with thousands of
Kierthos
Other Companies??? (Score:2)
I mean mp3.com even copied their catchphrase from myplay.com
Digital Music Locker Trademark (Score:2)
Receipt needed (Score:2)
It more than suffices to prove that they have the possession, and it's unhackable (unless the client stores an entire copy of the CD, which makes the whole thing pointless anyway). But what werdna called attention to is that it doesn't just say "possession", it says "lawful possession". How do you know the CD wasn't borrowed from a friend, or stolen?
It's going to have to involve some sort of transmission of a sales receipt, (or a history of receipts and transfers in the case of a used CD). That's the only way anyone would be able to tell if the possession was lawful or not.
---
Lobbying - Law & DiMA (Score:2)
I see a few people suggestin ghte mp3.com hired some lobbyinst to get this bill, but somehow I think DiMA is more likely to be responsible.
And you know what?
mp3.com aren't a member of this digital media lobbying group, so they probably had nothing to do with it. I'm not sure if this is because mp3.com don't want to be a member of an association dedicated to the legal side of things... or whether DiMA just won't let a company like mp3.com join for fear of damaging it's reputation - note that their memebers (www.digimedia.org/members/index.cfm) don't include other controvesial companies like Napster.
So my guess is that they are probably the ones which may ultimately save mp3.com (ironic since the my.mp3.com concept was stolen from DiMA members....)
Re:Write to your Representative! (Score:2)
Um, no. Tell that to survivors of Nazi concetration camps, US concentration camps (Japanese "internment" camps during WW 2), survivors of the Soviet Gulags, etc.
Freedom is precious. Freedom is more precious than security. And once you lose it, you may never get it back. And oppressive regimes can do, and have done, terrible things.
Re:How will this work? (Score:2)
MP3 was free to be you and me...? (Score:2)