Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

MP3 device makers win at the court 41

Posted by Hemos from the winning-the-day dept.
Beke sent us the latest update from the MP3 universe. A US Federal Judge has ruled that Diamond's Rio does not fall under the "digital recording device" definition, as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means that the Rio does not have implement a code system to prevent serial re-recording. So, the act does apply to tapes and CDs - but not to hard drives, says Diamond's attorney.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MP3 device makers win at the court More

MP3 device makers win at the court

Comments Filter:
  • What good is 5 1/2 hours of music if battery life is only 4 hours?

    Er, because changing the batteries is easier than loading in a new playlist?

    I suspect however, the answer is to keep a bunch of RAM on the unit (16 or 32mb), and only fire up the drive every once in a while. Keep the current track in memory, and maybe the first 30 seconds of every track on the disk (so you can instantly switch tracks while the rest gets loaded in the background).

    Sounds like a good idea.

    Maybe I'm wrong the microdrive uses almost no juice. Anyone have more info on this issue?

    It's designed for use with battery-operated devices, but I don't know how good a job they did on that point.
    /.

  • I would have to agree entirely with your point! There have been statements on this site many many times before that musicians shouldnt recieve any kind of re-imbursement for their recordings, that they should tour instead to make money. As a musician myself who is working on releasing his own material for FREE, I can tell you that my low budget(Digital not Analog tape)recording is still going to cost me 10,000.00 to release my music via MP3.I have played on CDs before so I cant deal with a recording that isnt clean. I am not looking to make it back or to make a profit. It means a great deal to me that people can hear my work with no monitary obsticles. However, there are some people who cant do this as easly as I can. This is where my argument comes in that IF there is a requested fair priced (like 6 or 8 bucks for an entire CD)charge for good music, we should pay it and support the artist that we enjoy so that the artist can not only continue to create, but to possibly augment their abilities to record in future releases from OUR contributions. I for one would like to see a revolution in the way music is distributed and hope that MP3 is the catalist as it appears to be.
    Maybe the choice that musicians now have, will allow some really great music to be heard that I have been hearing in the bars around my area!
  • Well yes, the RIAA will probably now turn around and say that a computer qualifies as a digital recording device (which is pretty much does) but because of the fact that a computer is such a general use device the courts will most likly laugh in the RIAA's face.

  • If RIAA had their way, there would be a tax on babies. After all, babies grow up to be college students, and college students pirate music...

  • "Generally a pretty clueful opinion, IMHO."

    It means people who care, are snailing letters
    to people who have influence!

    WRITE your representatives! Email doesn't have
    the same impact as snail!
  • I woudn't be dropping anything that I spend more than 300 bucks on, trust me.... and if I did.. well, I'm not even thinking about it...

    Your points are good, but once an audio cd is made, it can be played at home or on the road in any old cd-player...

    I think if I had the cash, a RIO with tons of memory is nice, but for now, until i win the lottery, I'll stick with cd's and portable cd-players.
  • Comment. Have you even noticed how hard it is to find a lot of (even popular) songs on CD-singles? or how expensive they've become? ... I would probably have a lot more if (a) the right product (singles) was available and (b) the price was right. Right now the Music industry is failing badly on both counts. MP3's on the other hand, are delivering the goods in both departments.

    I believe this is the cornerstone for all the controversy about mp3s. Of course the Labels are fighting tooth and nail to restrict digital recording - a huge chunk of their revenu stream comes from their ability to control the delivery format! Anyone remember the big tiff Springsteen got into with the Born in America album? (I think that was what it was called) He wanted to put lots of good tunes on one LP. The Label wanted him to spread them out over several LPs. Why? Money! By trickling out only a few "good" songs on each album, they make loads more cash. This is what digital recording and the Internet threatens to destroy: Label control over packaging.

    And it's about damned time we consumers were given the opportunity to choose which songs we want on a CD! Personally I think songs should be priced individually and the packaging should happen at the store. I have no problem paying $2.99 or $3.99 for a great tune. And I have no problem paying $30-$40 for a CD full of them. There will be hard feelings (and some piracy) only so long as the Labels refuse to give us the goods we want. And that my friends is pure and simple Capitalism. Tell the lawyers to go home.
  • "that mail-order music
    clubs can charge $4/CD"

    Which clubs are those? Not Columbia House or BMG, certainly.
  • My friend has a CD burner and he has taken all his Books on tape and copyied them to mp3 and burned them to CD so he can take them to work and play them at work. You don't have to use a really high bitrate either. I expect you could do the same with the rio.
  • That is more than the mainstream artists are making now believe it or not. Considering that an average royalty payment is between 5 and 15 percent of the CD sale. If the artist releases 5 CDs the artist would make more and the consumer(you and I) would pay out less. check out www.ascap.com for more info.

  • wuhoo (Score:1)

    by pilot ( 15439 )
    Finally, the recording industry is getting what it deservers. This is the way I'd love to see things. Artists release their music via mp3's on the net. Then if you like 'em, go support them by going to concerts. I'd rather do that then buy cd's. now, if only i could afford to buy one of those rio's, the world would be a better place :-)
  • Is enough cash to buy one of these things. That and an Empeg.

  • I guess this would then also apply to digital transmission (i.e. my cable modem line buying an MP3 from mp3.com?).

    This could have some very serious implications. I'm sure the RIAA is getting their lawyers ready to draft a new version of the home recording act to send to DC....
  • I buy many.. but then, I already only pay $6-$8 per CD. And legally, too. Unfortunately, it seems people are clueless when it comes to the fact that mail-order music clubs can charge $4/CD (+$2 S/H) and make a profit, while the stores charge $17+ for the same ones... And the mail-order houses have employees, just as stores do. Maybe not as many, but still...
    --

  • Pinch me I must be dreaming! (Score:3)

    by Fish Man ( 20098 ) on Wednesday June 16, 1999 @03:17AM (#1848194) Homepage
    What a great day for consumer freedom!

    First the death of DIVX, now the liberation of personal MP3 players!

    Next article: "Microsoft abandons attempt to produce final version of Windows 2000, It's just to bloated and badly written to adequately debug, recomends Windows users switch to Linux."

    (Sorry, all this good news just got me carried away!)
  • First, Divx dies (Woohoo!), then a court gets a ruling right (Woohoo!). What's next? MS v DOJ Trial ends? (DOH!).

    This will now pave the way for bigger and much better players since companies won't be worried about this looming overhead.

    RB
  • First, DIVX is dead!
    Second, MP3 on hard drives is legal and the RIAA lawyers were sent scurrying away with their tails between their legs.

    Once again, the courts are starting to show they can make the right decisions when they know about the underlying technologies. The RIAA were just trying to be greedy and kill an emerging technology because it might break their monopolistic stranglehold on the market. The court seems to have seen through that lie, and saw that the RIO allows only single copies to be made at a time.

    Notice they cleverly sidestepped the issue of the legality of MP3s, so the battle with the RIAA will go on until no more lawyers will touch the case or the RIAA are all thrown into prison.

    I like the DIVX quote about how all consumers liked it, but no retailers or music studios supported it. I thought nobody supported it, and the only people who bought the players were pressured into it by the Circuit City sales droids (commissions were twice for DIVX than for DVD alone).

    And the DIVX silver allowing unlimited playing turns out not to be unlimited, but will stop playing in 2001.

    Too much good news in one day from /.

    the AntiCypher
  • Freedom is always good, don't abuse it however.

    It is not really the case that you make much money from concerts and touring, ask Frank Zappa.

    Often the tours are to encourage CD sales etc

    Hey, if its good, and you like/use it (its all bits these days, whether music or code), pay for it . . . whatever that means . . . the free/open software movement has another def of pay, methinks 'contribute'.

  • I've seen several other MP3 related news tidbits in the last day so with little fanfare, here's a rundown of them...

    1. There was an article about MP3 usage by young people in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, Page 1 of the Marketplace section). Basically it talks about how MP3 usage has migrated down from the college crowd to the High Schools and Middle Schools. Among other things, students mention the popularity of using the School's Computers and connections to download MP3's, and the ease of finding specific songs.


    Comment. Have you even noticed how hard it is to find a lot of (even popular) songs on CD-singles? or how expensive they've become? I own over 1,000 audio CD's (anyone remember 3 inch CD-singles?) but I would probably have a lot more if (a) the right product (singles) was available and (b) the price was right. Right now the Music industry is failing badly on both counts. MP3's on the other hand, are delivering the goods in both departments.

    2. If I recall correctly, Creative's Nomad unit is supposed to have voice recording capability built in. Maybe that's a great idea, but wouldn't that make it a big target for the RIAA as it would have anknowledged built-in recording capability; which the lack of was main part of the decision in the Rio's favor. I guess so far the Creative unit (is it shipping yet?) has stayed under the RIAA's radar.

    3. Yesterday, I saw on NEWS.com the announcment that (some?) future RIO units will use IBM's matchbook-sized 340mb MicroDrive Hard Disk. Currently Storage Capacity is the big sticking point with my geek friends and portable MP3 players. 340mb == 5 1/2 hours @ 128Kbits.


    Comment. My wife owns a RIO (32mb). While the memory size (8 songs usually) is a downside, the batter life and light weigh is an unexpected upside. She uses it a lot, including when she works out or rides her Motorcycle. And the thing is darn near indestructible. What good is 5 1/2 hours of music if battery life is only 4 hours? If new units need a better battery, wouldn't that mean heavier? I suspect however, the answer is to keep a bunch of RAM on the unit (16 or 32mb), and only fire up the drive every once in a while. Keep the current track in memory, and maybe the first 30 seconds of every track on the disk (so you can instantly switch tracks while the rest gets loaded in the background). Maybe I'm wrong the microdrive uses almost no juice. Anyone have more info on this issue?

    4. Finally, has anyone given thought to "books on tape" becoming "books on MP3"? Audio books do suprisingly well; and taking a RIO with a book-on-tape on a 3 1/2 hour airplane flight would be way more convient that taking a bunch of tapes, tape player, and batteries.

  • People interested in this subject should read the full text of the decision [findlaw.com].

    Here's what I think is the core of the decision:

    Even though it cannot directly reproduce a digital music recording, the Rio would nevertheless be a digital audio recording device if it could reproduce a digital music recording "from a transmission."
    17 U.S.C. 1001(1) [cornell.edu]. [...] The Senate Report [on the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 [cornell.edu]] provides a radio broadcast as an example of a transmission. [...] The parties [dispute] whether indirect reproduction of a transmission of a digital music recording is covered by the Act. RIAA asserts that indirect reproduction of a transmission is sufficient for the Rio to fall within the Act's ambit as a digital audio recording device.

    [...] [T]he Rio can indirectly reproduce a transmission. For example, if a radio broadcast of a digital audio recording were recorded on a [DAT] and then uploaded to a computer hard drive, the Rio could indirectly reproduce the transmission by downloading a copy from the hard drive. Thus, if indirect reproduction of a transmission falls within the statutory definition, the Rio would be a digital audio recording device.

    RIAA's interpretation of the statutory language initially seems plausible, but closer analysis reveals that it is contrary to the statutory language and common sense. [...] RIAA's interpretation of the Act's language ... would only cover the indirect recording of transmissions, and would omit restrictions on the direct recording of transmissions (e.g., recording songs from the radio) from the Act's ambit. [...] It makes little sense for the Act to restrict the indirect recording of transmissions, but to allow unrestricted direct recording of transmissions (e.g., to regulate second-hand recording of songs from the radio, but to allow unlimited direct recording of songs from the radio).

    Here's an interesting footnote:

    RIAA ... predicts that losses to digital Internet piracy will soon surpass the $300 million that is allegedly lost annually to other more traditional forms of piracy.(1)

    (1) Whether or not piracy causes such financial harm is a subject of dispute. Critics of the industry's piracy loss figures have noted that a willingness to download illicit files for free does not necessarily correlate to lost sales, for the simple reason that persons willing to accept an item for free often will not purchase the same item, even if no longer freely available. Critics further note that the price of commercially available recordings already reflects the existence of copying and the benefits and harms such copying causes; thus, they contend, the current price of recordings offsets, at least in part, the losses incurred by the industry from home taping and piracy. [Citations omitted.]

    Generally a pretty clueful opinion, IMHO.

  • Burn custom CD's with N MP3 files on them selected manually by users from a huge demo web site like MP3.com. $.25 a song, overnight delivery. The RIAA members could beat MP3.com to the punch with their huge catalogs and the profit margins would be enormously higher. Then you split off the art materials and fan stuff which eats into the profit margin into pay-zines and e-commerce items which you can order along with the songs. *DUUUUH*!!
  • You know, I wonder something - the ruling is stating that the RIO doesn't fall under the guidelines of the Audio Home Recording Act, because the RIO "downloads" a copy of a digital encoded image (MP3) from another hard drive, and that it doesn't make recordings from an analog source. However, if you wanted to remain legal with everything, in order to get a song you don't have in another format (CD, tape), you would have to purchase the MP3 from someplace, then download it to the RIO - and checks would have to be in place to keep your freind from downloading it to his RIO as well (from your computer), right? Plus, the RIO couldn't have any kind of audio in plugs for recording...

    What is so confusing about this is that the Audio Home Recording Act seems to apply mainly to the conversion process - from digital (CD) to analog (speakers, audio out), then using that output to make an illegal tape or something (or CD - back to digital). In other words, going from digital to analog then back to digital (with MP3 or CD, or staying analog, in the case of a tape) is wrong, but what about straight digital? In other words, direct CD -> CD or CD -> MP3 encoding? How does this fit in?

    I know this is rambling - I hope someone can make since of what it is I am getting at. I guess I am wondering if the act would cover RIOs that could download from each other? Not record from an analog source - but direct digital copies? Then download to your computer? No analog process involved? It almost seems like the fact that music CDs are data (and not analog recordings) is getting lost somewhere...

    Aggg!
  • It seems to me that the only workable model for online music distribution is a voluntary, shareware style system. It's no use trying to force your users to pay for the music; any scheme you could come up with is trivial to defeat (by resampling the music if nothing else), so copy protection schemes only serve to irritate and alienate your legitimate users.

    So how about this: Encode in each mp3 file some kind of (PGP-signed) account information linked to the author(s) of the song. Then, whenever the song is playing, there can be a panel in the player's GUI that lights up and says something like:

    "You have listened to this song 17 times. License fee for this song is 5 cents per listen, up to a maximum of one dollar. Click here to pay the license fee and support your favorite music!"

    When you click, the program deducts some money from your account (credit card or whatever) and adds it to that of the musician.

    Of course, users would be free to ignore this message as long as they wanted, but that's no worse than the current system--pirates won't pay no matter what. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of people out there who *would* pay for the music they enjoy, if it was dead-easy and hassle free to do so.

    Does anyone else think such a thing could work?

  • I am happy to see that there are still people who aren't drowning in the "music should be free" frenzy. The truth is, that the creation of music is like any other endeavor: Because it requires time, energy, talent, and other resources, it's anything BUT free. The compensation afforded artists should cover not only the cost of production and distribution, but acknowledge the value that the music has to its listeners.

    To echo your sentiment, if you like it and listen to it, pay for it. IMHO, the greatest thing about the MP3 movement has nothing to do with whether or not music is free. Instead, it's about a dramatic shift in who has control over an artist's material, and how much it will cost.
  • Seriously, just buy the translucent teal Dianmond Rio PMP 300 (64MB) and add a 32MB chip. Three hours. Actually, get the leather case and buy three 32MB chip - then you can have a base 2 hours of your faves and three 1 hour chips for different moods.

    It's just as light, still uses one AA battery.

    Will in Seattle
  • What kind of money are we talking about here, This sounds like a very good alternative, but with all that extra memory, there's quite a bit more weight, depending on how big these ram (memory) chips are...
    I'd rather have a nice cd-player with say VMSS if you like the Panasonic variety. Then burn a bunch of audio cd's with the mp3's. Depending of course on the cost associated with the RIO 96meg and case....
    Matter of opinion i suppose,
    Greets, Ian
  • The ruling is that the RIO is not a recording device, and so isn't covered by existing laws.
    The ruling has nothing to do with which media
    types are covered. E.g. by the judge's reasoning,
    a the Rio is like a CD player or even a tape player - it is a mechanism for playing recorded
    sounds, not a mechanism for recording those sounds.

    Presumably, MP3 *recorders* would still be recording devices and so fall under existing laws.

    Can a RIO send a digital stream elsewhere?

    Of course, by RIAA's logic, your cd player, interconnects,preamp, amp, speakerwire and speakers could be "recording devices"...

  • Re:wuhoo (Score:1)

    by jms ( 11418 )
    Depends. If you're the Phish or the Grateful Dead, you make (made) your money from tours, even when your albums didn't even make the charts.

    Interestingly, the most successful touring bands these days are the bands that allow audience taping -- the anthesis of the "strict control" model over IP being pushed by the record labels.

  • Who will pay for the thousands of dollars in studio costs for a band that dosnt have any money? You cant book a nationwide tour on an unknown band. Sure there are exceptions, but statisticly speaking... There are a lot of talented bands who would have no hope of ever releasing anything if they werent supplied with the cost of printing a CD. This is the primary reason that record companies appeared in the first place(before they turned into corporate musical garbage houses interested in money only, not truly talented acts)
  • IP Multicasting Initiative [stardust.com] and iBAND [stardust.com] are two conferences which offer MP3 versions of the proceedings. The last iBAND combined the cost of the MP3 player with the registration which might make gadget acquisition easier for some of us.
  • Let's see, Rio Personal 64MB was $249.95 (but if you go to the web site and upgrade from a standard Rio, they give you $100 off). Memory chips are $99.95 for 32MB or $179.95 for 2pack (32MB).

    Cheap.

    Oh, ok, maybe not, but light as all get out. The Memory chips are teeny, the player is nigh-invulnerable and you don't really need the case.


    Will in Seattle

Slashdot Top Deals

Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360

Close