RIAA Loses Case Against Launch Media 86
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's claim that personalized internet radio stations were 'interactive services' was flatly rejected 'as a matter of law' by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Arista Records v. Launch Media. In affirming the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant, Launch Media — acquired during the lawsuit by Yahoo! — the Court said it did not even need to concern itself with possible errors in the jury instructions, since the trial judge should have directed a verdict for defendant 'as a matter of law' on the question of whether the radio stations were 'interactive services.' At pages 23-42 of its 42-page opinion (PDF), the appeals court carefully analyzed how Launch Media's personalized internet radio stations worked, and noted that the users could neither obtain and play on demand a particular song, nor obtain the transmission of a particular program, thus rendering the RIAA's claim of 'interactivity' meritless."
"RIAA loses" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"RIAA loses" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"RIAA loses" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA: making Microsoft look ethical since 2003.
(The BSA lets you go when you only pay for the software you actually use.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's something to brighten up the day:
http://www.google.com/search?q=riaa+loses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.gentoo:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com] :)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You're reading Slashdot! (Score:1, Funny)
Don't you think he'd know that?
Although, yes, I can see how that may come in handy should he ever forget.
Re: (Score:2)
He's also in the US... or else he just chose to use google.com instead of something else...
Of course he could always be spoofing the UA string... or even hand-crafting the URL...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that the RIAA lawsuits are an attempt to mandate Atheism as manditory? Or is this a claim that Christians should be opposed to RIAA practices as a fundamental evil?
I'm sorry, but you can't logically claim something is neutral with respect to religion and the religious are a bunch of brainwashed zealots. Doesn't work. Try it: "OK, side A is rationally right, and side B is irrationally, dangerously and fanatically wrong. I figured that out by not having a strong bias for or against side B, as
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't wait for the day that headline becomes so commonplace I get bored of it.
It won't. They may be delusional, but they're not stupid. If they stop winning, they won't keep throwing cash at the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
The day they stop suing poor people who can't afford lawyers is the day they lose their revenue source...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they stop winning, they won't keep throwing cash at the lawyers.
I wouldn't say they keep "winning". They've had 2 trials, in 1 of which the defendant admitted liability. In most contested cases they've discontinued the case, scurrying away with their tails between their legs.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait for the day when there is no RIAA. The established recording industry is of no use to anyone since the advent of cheap recording and duplication. Good musical instruments are expensive, recording them no longer is.
It's a zombie industry that needs a stake through its heart or something.
Re:It is interactive... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this close enough? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Most people would claim that monkeys are luminous if it somehow hurt the RIAA.
You missed this [slashdot.org] story didn't you. All living things emit visible light at low levels. So with that in mind, the RIAA must be doomed.
This is why we need a new mod choice (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is interactive... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a request from Slashdot based on this post.
We need a -1: Stupid.
It's not trolling, nor really flamebait, nor offtopic, or redundant. Also, offtopic just isn't quite enough.
As for why I feel that way: Interactive, the way you see it, would mean that radios are interactive. Which would break the whole idea of broadcast to start with. After all, I set my dial to a channel and listen. If I don't like it, I can switch stations. In fact, I know what genres the stations tend to play, so I can add them to a "favorites" list called presets if I like them. The broadcast stations react to listeners by tracking how many they have and adjusting content to keep and expand that base. And, if listeners disappear, a station will react to that input (or lack thereof) and shutdown or change genres.
Oh, even better, many of these stations "take requests" from some listeners and then play those songs. In that regard, broadcast radio is *more interactive* than the services presented by Launch, and Pandora.
So... I don't know what exactly you were going for in your post, but this has nothing to do with just hate for the RIAA... This is a case where we finally see someone applying common sense and *law* to a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Dangit... correction: "Also, overrated just isn't quite enough."
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine there's some lower bound here on listeners / channel. I mean with a near infinite number of channels and a channel search tool you can have your personal selection on demand. I haven't counted the radio channels recently but they're pretty few in this context.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a "-1: Don't agree" mod. Then moderators could use that and the system could decrease karma of the moderator using it instead of the post.
Re: (Score:2)
That'll work for about five seconds...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, even better, many of these stations "take requests" from some listeners and then play those songs.
I used that just a couple of days ago; WQNA was playing raggae, so I called up and asked for Marley. The next song was a Bob Marley song. If I'd requested "No Woman, No Cry" he'd likely have played that tune as well.
It's a little 400 watt college station, but still...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
For instance, "responsibility" may have different meanings in civil and criminal law, and both are different from what is meant in normal English. Every field has specific technical j
Re: (Score:2)
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
And you're absolutely correct, as well. The ruling makes it clear that the question is whether the application "provides a program specifically created for the user", not whether it's interactive in any technical sense. I mean, an AM radio is interactive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. The only people who's opinions matter, that is the appeals court, decided that it isn't interactive.
Pandora? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pandora? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pandora has some semblance of interactivity that regular streaming radio does not.
You can vote song/artists off the island, and fine tune the selection to your particular tastes.
Still, you might be on to something here because you still can't order up a song at will, nor know what is coming ahead of time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pandora? (Score:4, Funny)
Right. I just read over the whole decision......
You read all 42 pages??? You must be new to /.! Nobody reads it all here.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
'read over' isn't the same as actually reading everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I just read over the whole decision......
You read all 42 pages??? You must be new here. Nobody reads it all here.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:1)
You must be new to /.
You read all 42 pages??? You must be new here. Nobody reads it all here.
There, fixed that for you.
Sarcasm
/Sarcasm
You might be new here if you haven't figured out what "/." means....
Re: (Score:1)
I do like Pandora, but I greatly preferred my Launchcast stations because you could rate genres 1 to 100, artists 1 to 100, albums 1 to 100, and songs 1 to 100. Then you could apply moods to your stations. It was VERY granular and my station only played the songs I really really liked or wanted to l
Pandora (Score:3, Interesting)
Will this lead to lower rates for Pandora? From the summary they sound like a similar service, yet the fact they aren't being sued implies to me that they've "paid up" at the higher, interactive rate.
I give Pandora referrer credit for every song I buy from Amazon or iTunes, but since Pandora can't track referrer income to particular uses, I still get hit up to pay their RIAA-tax subscription money or GTFO their service each month. I know Pandora has to do it to survive, but if this ruling lowers their rates maybe they can do away with the audio ads or raise the monthly cap.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a commercial on the radio yesterday touting a new Federal law called the Local Radio Freedom Act [nab.org], which is designed to keep radio from paying the same fees as Pandora. The commercial said that my congressman (John Shimkis (R) and both my Senators (Richard Durbin (D) and Roland Burris (D, unelected) are all for it. I think I'll write them and tell them internet radio shouldn't have to pay, either.
What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:2)
What does "as a matter of law" really mean?
How does it differ from "as a matter of fact"?
IANAL - nor can I afford one to answer this question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is what the words would imply. A matter of law is one where the question (and/or answer) are related to the law on the books. The specific facts of the case aren't relevant, because the law itself is what we are talking about here. A good example would be if a mechanic was charged with 1st degree murder for forgetting to check if the breaks on a vehicle were good. The facts of the case, if the mechanic actually did check or not, wouldn't be relevant. The reason is that as a matter of law, tha
not quite (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you get your legal advice here, you may as well just sign away your house, children, and car now and savve on legal fees . . .
Anyway . . .
That's not quite right; the facts as alleged by that party do matter. "As a matter of law" means that the evidence doesn't matter. Such a ruling means that even if they could prove everything that they alleged, they would still lose.
In this case, they found that the judge did indeed err--but not by giving the wrong instructions, as the RIAA alleged, but by even letting the jury hear the case, as no reasonable jury could have found for the RIAA. (Yeah, and here we get a bit murky with two overlapping "as a matter of law" usages, one on the allegations, and one on the strength of the evidence. Life's rough :)
hawk, esq
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not an lawyer either, but the concept between a "matter of law" and a "matter of fact" is pretty basic.
Matters of fact: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did."
Matters of law: "Of course I did it; it ain't against the law, bub!" "Yes it is".
In this case, the fact that internet radio stations were broadcasting copyrighted material (for which they had the proper licenses) was not in doubt. The question was one of law: is that an "interactive service" or not, which has additional restrictions on it?
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:5, Informative)
I am not an lawyer either, but the concept between a "matter of law" and a "matter of fact" is pretty basic. Matters of fact: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did." Matters of law: "Of course I did it; it ain't against the law, bub!" "Yes it is". In this case, the fact that internet radio stations were broadcasting copyrighted material (for which they had the proper licenses) was not in doubt. The question was one of law: is that an "interactive service" or not, which has additional restrictions on it?
In the context in which it was said in this case, it meant simply that there was no factual issue, that under the conceded undisputed facts, it was not interactive, no matter how you slice it.
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:4, Informative)
What does "as a matter of law" really mean?
How does it differ from "as a matter of fact"?
IANAL - nor can I afford one to answer this question.
:) It means that there is no factual "issue" for the jury to resolve. I.e., that based upon the known facts, it is automatic that this is not "interactive" within the meaning of the statute.
No charge.
Re: (Score:2)
> No Charge.
Pro bono. Write it off on your taxes.
Thanks.
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:4, Funny)
>No charge.
*shudder*
C'mon, a country lawyer should know to never point that out or bring attention to it :)
hawk, esq.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got that, or I wouldn't have jumped in with my own joke!
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
He does work at slashdot pro bono. Unfortunately, Sony Bono had a say in the stupid copyright laws...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is a myth, but alledgedly one US state legislature decreed that pi be equal to 3. So as a matter of law, pi is 3, while as a matter of fact it's ~3.14172 (iirc).
Court Costs Paid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this mean the RIAA pays the victim's court costs?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but note that "costs" are not the same as "fees". Court costs are quite minimal -- filing fees and such -- it's not the same as attorney's fees and the other expenses related to litigation.
Incidentally, to clarify the question above, "as a matter of law" means that the question could have been resolved by the judge on a motion to dismiss (without reference to the facts and assuming all facts to be true as alleged in the complaint), rather than on a motion for summary judgment (which relies on statement
Re:Court Costs Paid? (Score:4, Informative)
The last line of the ruling says: The district court's judgment of May 16, 2007 in favor 15 of Appellee is hereby AFFIRMED with costs. Does this mean the RIAA pays the victim's court costs?
In that context, it just referred to certain costs incurred in connection with the appeal. But under the Copyright Act the plaintiffs may indeed be liable for defendant's attorneys fees.
Irrelevant -- service already defunct (Score:3, Informative)
This may or may not impact Pandora, but the service at the center of this dispute was eliminated [wikipedia.org] last spring by Yahoo.
Re: (Score:1)
Grooveshark (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only if they argue that they should be paying the statutory fees instead of the per-song licensing.
If they're happily/unhappily ponying up the per-song license fees, they're in the clear.
What Does IBM Even DO Anymore? (Score:1, Offtopic)
You know, I've seen this a couple times before. About a decade ago I was a a Linux con and SGI was there. They we
Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law? (Score:2)
If this is indeed the case, that an internet station is just like a "regular" station, then how many can someone have? I am picturing this:
"This is all The Beatles 'Strawberry Fields Forever', all the time!"
"This is the Foo Fighters 'The Pretender', all day and all night!"
One station playing the same song over and over. Or even just the same album. Actual over-the-air radio stations couldn't afford to do this, but with the Internet, it would be fairly easy. You could "tune in" to the station, record it once
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the playlist rotation of the top-40 stations, you can pretty much do that anyway. Plug you computer into your radio and let it sample, you'll probably have a copy of that song in a couple of hours.