Why MP3.com Never Appealed: The Legal System Made It Impossible
from the not-how-it's-supposed-to-work dept
It's been nearly six years since a judge ruled that Michael Robertson's MP3.com violated copyrights with its My.Mp3.com service. For those of you too busy focused on your bubble-era dot coms at the time, the service had digitized thousands of CDs for people to listen to. However, to keep it all legal (they thought), you had to own a copy of the actual CD to get access to the digitized streaming version. Putting that CD into your CD-ROM drive would "register" it to your account, and then you could listen to the CD streaming from MP3.com. Also, if you bought a CD through their website, you could immediately listen to the streaming version while you waited for the physical CD to be delivered. There were ways that crafty folks could get around the limitations -- but for the most part, this was a really useful service that actually (gasp!) made buying CDs a lot more valuable without the recording industry having to do a damn thing. So, of course, the RIAA had to destroy it with a lawsuit. In Tim Lee's recent paper, he wondered why MP3.com never appealed the original ruling, as you could make a good case that the judge misunderstood what was really going on. Michael Robertson has now emailed Lee to explain the legal quirks for the lack of an appeal. Apparently, in order to appeal, the company would have needed to put up a bond for the potential damages. Since the RIAA could push for statutory damages, MP3.com was looking at getting someone to put up a bond for potentially tens of billions of dollars -- making it effectively impossible. Randomly... in looking over our own historical links on MP3.com, I came across a related story that I had totally forgotten about. After MP3.com lost the case, the company apparently sued its own law firm for having given them the assurance that the program was legal. MP3.com apparently felt this was "legal malpractice." Does anyone know what ever happened to that case?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Recording songs
I had no problem with doing this because once I hear the song and it was public I could record it.
No one said a thing while I was recording these songs on my reel to reel or my cassetes and sharing these songs with my friends.
Now with the internet I guess the artist are getting pissed because they are not getting all of the millions of dollars that they believe they deserve.
I do respect the artist but the problem is that they release their songs on public radio and once that is done You can record and share with friends.
You can do this and it is legal as long as it is not done for a profit.
This is my humble opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording songs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recording songs
So I take it you've never heard of fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Recording songs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording songs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, I got a great idea, lets pop quiz all the top artists and see what percentage can read the music they claim to produce... A trebble cleff, wha?
Anything worth listening to was written in the baroque period. And that's free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah
What about your BS glory boys who play sports and get paid 9 million+ a year, and still bitch that they don't have enough food to put on the table.
I'm a musician and I think P2P is all good. But Artists still deserve support and money for the hard work that they creat and share with everyone. $15 is a super reasonable price for CD or vinyl. Anyone who says no is probably broke ... or just ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some of us even understand coda, transposition, mode, tenor clef, well-tempered and non-tempered instruments, meaningful dissonance, the quality of not having every single sound cleaned and perfected with Pro Tools (intonation is a bear, but sometimes, a little "lack of intonation" gives a "live" quality to the recording), singing from the heart, etc.
I enjoy music from very many periods, including the baroque.. But I do take the time to listen to music from a great variety of eras and styles - there's always something to learn. Heard some Buddy Guy lately? Stevie Ray Vaughan? Johnny Cash? John Cage?
But back to the subject...
I think the idea of listening to one's music before the CD arrives at one's doorstep was a cool idea - not dissimilar to being able to download software for which one has paid, but has not yet physically arrived at the doorstep. Also, being able to stream one's music library from anywhere in the world (at an airport and want to hear that new CD you just bought?) is very cool. it is too bad mp3.com could not survive - innovation sometimes gets trampled for the wrong reasons...
There has to be a way that the RIAA and the consumer can be friends and get along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snob?!
Nope, you gotta buy the score, or buy the recordings from the modern artists. It is only FREE if you don't donate to your local NPR association and if you don't pay your taxes which help fund "art that nobody wants to pay for" budgets.
Interesting that you nock broque for pop as there are a ton of simulararities between modern pop and broque music. But since you are a "musical snob" you don't see that because while "music snobs" may know a lot about music, and their periods, they don't really understand music theory and therefore, end up saying stupid things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is also the issue of copyright of arrangement. It is becoming ever more difficult to find non-copyrighted arrangments of things that are functionally in the public domain (like Christmas music from the early 1800s, or Beethoven, for that matter). I know that arrangement is hard work, and good arrangements should be rewarded, but if one wants to play a tune (without royalties, that is) from 1750, one has to jump through hoops to make sure that one is grabbing an arrangement that is out of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No bond can be an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This time the RIAA had a case
Copyright laws say that not only you have to own a legal copy of the media, but you have to keep on owning it for as long as you care to listen to the music.
mp3.com only required the CD to be physically present once in the computer to register it in their database (the beam-it service). Present in any computer. And then you could go on listening to the music for as long as you cared. So you could buy a CD, register it with them, bring it back to the shop as unwanted. Or borrow a CD from a friend and register it. Or rent a CD and register it. Or visit a friend, listen to one of his CD, and register it with your account from his computer. It is much easier, and faster, and more secretive, than ripping the CD on your own.
All in all, there were so many situations were you could exploit the "Beam-it" service that the judge had a good case to work on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This time the RIAA had a case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough
And how the hell is this more secretive than ripping the CD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheers!!
Luckily, 100 years ago - the horse and buggy industry didn't have this kind of lobby power in Washington, else we would have likely been still riding in carrages.
Way to go RIAA!! Squash that Innovation!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheers!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The notations that allow someone to recreate the music may be free, but I believe if you were to try and offer modern Kiri Takanawa recordings of Baroque music for download, the RIAA would still come after you since the performance is itself copywritten.
Course, as has been pointed out, the opinion of someone claiming that no music worth listening to has been written/recorded in a few hundred years is suspect anyway. MTV, Sony and Clear Channel (despite their best efforts) are not the sole sources of music in the world. Go to a club, listen to indies, at least make an effort, before you bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To avoid ever buying the same song twice, buy it once for $1 from Napster or MSN Music, digitally convert the DRM'd WMA into a high-quality, non-DRM'd mp3, store it on your HD and your external HD.
If you do the above you will have the song until you die (or your house burns down), then you can pass it on to your children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get how some ppl turn their pc's into music jukeboxes. I have a nice stereo and buy all my CD's and its cheaper than any online music store. Using a music store like BMG helps cut even more costs.
Sure I have bought a few samples online with some free pepsi caps etc but nothing after that. Too much can go wrong corrupt downloaded etc. If I want to listen off the PC, just use winamp...:)
I don't agree with the RIAA and what they have done, and I wish we could be back to the way of recording radio without watching over our backs, (recorded a lot when I was a kid) However times have changed and people are greedy. I also don't agree with pirating music etc and what really bugs me right now is when I buy a DVD and the first thing they advertise is a commercial saying don't steal and pirate DVDs, hello, I just bought the damn thing!! and they are preaching to me, after I buy them, its kinda like preaching to the wrong crowd.
Well that is just my two cents, mp3.com was squashed IMO, but big leaguers who controlled the RIAA to do what they wanted to do. Peace out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To term....to Greeger
Not saying its untrue, but I have not found anything as of yet. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To term....to Greeger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by Bob
I swear, the new "You wouldn't steal a car, why would you steal this movie" type of anti-piracy mini movies encourages me to steal the movie. At least the last movie I watched I could "next chapter" through it. that wasn't so bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh...MP3.com.
I miss those glory days of the late '90s, when web companies didn't have business models, they just threw venture capital at whoever they could find and believed it would magically return to them tenfold...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generally.
This means that it is perfectly okay to copy a copyrighted work from a public performance (radio or television) as long as the copying is for the private use of the consumer. This does not include giving the copy to all your friends, and it does not include playing the copyrighted work for a public audience.
While the laws of copyright are somewhat suspect when it comes to new technology, there are historically based reasons for them. Copyright law in the United States is based on the Statute of Anne (1710) from England. This statute was created to protect authors from the over-reaching of publishing companies. The Constitution grants the federal government the power to create copyright and patent law for the benefit of the author and the benefit of society. (US Const. art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8).
The idea is that an author, while seeking to benefit society, is not working solely for that. An author needs to be compensated for his work. There are few consumers who like the latest version of the Copyright Law, however, the intent is to foster creativity while allowing for the economic benefit of the author.
When a person puts their hard work and effort into a work, they own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Generally.
Unfortunately, the Corporations and Sonny Bono had more pull with Congress then the average American did and this "little" fact of our copyright law has been ursurped back by the Guilds. Thus ensuring that the amount of public domain music remains small and defeating the wonderful ideals that our Founding Fathers tried to foster in our fledgling new democracy.
Thanks to Sonny, RIAA and MPAA we will continue to pay for Elvis' songs long after he and his wife are no longer shuffling this mortal coil. As opposed to being able to enjoy his music as part of the Public Domain for the overall Public good.
Long live the almighty dollar and the Corporations taking the power back from the masses.
Did I mention that we just let them get away with it too? Why not vote with your dollars and only buy music from alternative open sources?
Of course, it's not like me posting on this forum is going to make a difference. Is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Generally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Generally.
Once again I'll say our Founding Fathers were trying to both protect the authors rights while providing for the public good by having protected works only be allowed to be copyrighted for a limited time.
The Guilds/printers' monopolies didn't want copyright law because they controlled all protected works and their duplications and distribution. (Sounds sort of like the RIAA and MPAA doesn't it?) They wanted to maintain control and with the advent of the printing press the English government started to establish new rules to protect all parties involved as well as the public good.
I am not a total expert on English law but there is enough information online from legitamate sources to back this basic premise up.
From my understanding our Founding Father's wanted to continue the good ideas that England had in copyright law and also make sure that copyrights had an expiration data so that the public domain would grow.
The force of law is implied but the early English laws did no most certainly serve the interests of the monopolies of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Generally.
In 1556, the Stationer’s Company (in the UK) was established by royal decree for the purpose of checking the spread of the Protestant Reformation. This was accomplished by concentrating the whole printing business into the hands of the few. The Crown’s grant allowed the stationer to have full and exclusive printing and publishing rights and basically eviscerated the rights of the authors. After a considerable time, the grant gradually lifted and independent publishers crowded into the mix. In response to the obviously illegal acts of the pirate independent publishers, the Company sought Parliament assistance. This lead to the first copyright statute, The Statute of Anne (1710).
The "Founding Fathers" put the Intellectual Property Clause into the Constitution to protect against the monopolies (granted by the government) that existed prior to Anne. However, the colonies (with the exception of two) had all enacted intellectual property rights statutes prior to both the Constitution and the first Copyright Act. The original term was to lsat 14 years.
Today, the limit is life of the author +70 years, or 95 years for works for hire, corporate authorship, pseudonymous works and anonymous works. It's not unlimited, though it is certainly long.
It is incorrect to say that the "Founding Fathers" lived in an era in which the Guilds "controlle[d] virtually all protected works indefinetely." The historical facts show that while that may have been true in the 1500s, it was certainly not the case in the late 1700s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps it's time for you to delve into a new genre...
I think what you need is alittle Metal, and not the mainstream crap either, perhaps some Necrophagist. yea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I live in a dorm building with several hundred other students. I have a pretty loud stereo system. If I play my music at max volume (I also live above the only entrance to the building, so nobody can really get in or out without hearing it, does that mean I am making a public performance of copyrighted music and therefore infringing on copyright?
I bet most people who read this will agree, it would be counted as a public performance, but I probably won't get in trouble legally because no one would really care. It just seems to me that the reason for a law is that it should always be enforced. So maybe the current copyright law needs an overhaul to work out the ambiguities. It's just a thought.
PS. I have no opinion on the modern music flaming I see going on. I listen to modern alternative rock and rap and I see it as an industrialized form of music, in the same way that your chairs were probably produced by mass production, and your car was assembled on an assembly line. It's faster, cheaper, but ultimately you lose some of the quality.
Sincerely,
Damien Hunter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: This time the RIAA had a case
I disagree. The recent Supreme Court decision on the role of inducement in the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing services shows that so long as a service has a legal use, and the service is not advertised as encouraging the illegal use, than the burden for misuse of the service (given due diligence on the service owners part) is on the user. All Beam-It would have to do is have something in their service agreement that spells out to not misuse the service in this way.
Granted, the P2P SCOTUS judgement came after the Beam-It verdict, but it was a well-supported conclusion. The potential for misuse a service does not invalidate the legal right to use a service.
Otherwise video rental services would never have existed. After all, you can illegally copy the movie when you have it at home and keep it! There goes Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
random thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I reminded them that most Chinese people didn't know what a garage was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Saloon in North Beach San Fran has been the site of historically important shows. Most of these shows were recorded and are in the possesion of the owner Myron Mu (fantastic guy btw). None of this content can be released due to the wrangling of the lawyers.
This is not about the artist getting his due. Its about being able to hear the best music available in all realms without 'music corporations' or 'law offices' locking up access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
appeal bond
if said bond would be unobtainable or bankrupt the firm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ourcome...Cyber malpractice? lol
http://freelimewire.info/2006/malpractice-in-cyberspace-mp3/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]