MP3

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Uh-oh.

B R E A K I N G N E W S
Judge Issues Ruling in MP3.com Case
A judge in New York has ruled that MP3.com willfully violated copyrights of music companies, and has awarded Universal Music Group $25,000 per CD or roughly $118 million.

 

[Cheri]

Most interesting case, although I personally see what mp3.com did as different than Napster (everyone get down and pray to the "fair use" gods that be for mercy). Nevertheless, I'm sure there will be an appeal, hopefully before a more sympathetic judge who has a clue on the whole techno frontier. I still don't understand what mp3.com was thinking in creating such a large database of songs like that...but what do I know

 

[Laurel]

Yeah, MP3's fucked, big time. They were putting up copyrighted music for their users to download without paying the fees. Dumb! With Napster, on the other hand, it's the users of Napster who supplied the music - some of which was in violation of copyrights. So the logical thing to do would be for the RIAA to sue the USERS who engaged in such activity - not Napster, which was simply a conduit - but we all know they won't do that.

The RIAA already lost the Napster battle, though. Even if they shut down Napster, they'll still have to contend with the dozens of other software programs (Gnutella, Gnotella, Freeserve, etc.) set up to trade music, movies, and pics. Napster's a loser too, because they're not going to come out of this the same. If Napster and the RIAA both had any brains at all, they'd make a deal with each other to their mutual benefit. Napster's traffic could be a boon to the RIAA, and the RIAA could compensate Napster very well. Whether either party has the brains to cooperate is a whole nuther story.

 

[Bobtoad777]

I can understand suing mp3, cause they databased their music. but suing napster is just rediculous as Laurel pointed out. napster is just a conduit it does not store or distribut the files it meerely places a toool in the peoples hand so that they can trade music.

the most riaa should be able to do to napster or any file shareing program is to do what did di with the napster/metallica fiasco, make them ban the user, or in the progrma itself make the problem music untradable by something in its programming, i dont know how but i know it can be done

 

[Guest]

Metallica are a bunch o' pussies...

My views as a musician - I've got no problem with Napster. I think it's a cool idea to be able to swap albums online. In the UK, the Musician's Union spent the '70s and '80s telling people: "HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC". It didn't happen. I've got hundreds of albums recorded onto C90 cassettes - all things I was vaguely interested in hearing. I taped stuff for my friends. In return they taped stuff for me. But whenever I found a band I really loved I still went out and bought the LP or CD. I wanted the whole package - artwork, vinyl & sleevenotes. I think it'll be a while before people lose the urge to purchase products. Downloading songs to your personal MP3 player fills a hole - kind of like taping stuff off the radio - but, in a way, it doesn't really fully satisfy you. There's a sensual pleasure in holding the album in your hands, studying the artwork and reading the sleevenotes.

I've got more of a problem with MP3.com though.