• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

** $1M Penalty For Company Harboring MP3 Files

W

Workin'

Diamond Member
From Information Week -

A company that allegedly stored digital music files on an internal server has agreed to pay a $1 million settlement to the Recording Industry Association of America, rather than face a copyright-infringement lawsuit.

According to the RIAA, technology consulting firm Integrated Information Systems Inc. was running a dedicated server containing thousands of MP3 files on its network, allowing all employees access to the music. In August, acting on an E-mail tip, the RIAA sent a letter to the Arizona company telling it to deactivate the server and threatening to sue for copyright infringement. Negotiations to settle the case began soon after that, with IIS eventually agreeing to pay a penalty. IIS did not immediately return calls for comment.

Jupiter Research analyst Aram Sinnreich says it isn't clear whether it's against the law for a company to store MP3s on an internal network. Most activities involving online music haven't been tested in court or been specifically addressed by the law, he says, but it still might behoove some companies to create an auditing process to search their internal systems for potentially infringing files, in order to avoid lawsuits. "They should assess what their actual risk is of being audited and policed, and assess what it would cost them in terms of resources and employee morale," he says. "I would imagine for a lot of small to midsize businesses, it just wouldn't be worth the effort, but for larger organizations it could be a good idea."

Gotta love the RIAA!
 
That company should have known better. Most companies have people using MP3s on their computer but these are probably just on their personal comp for personal use. Setting up a shared drive with a whack of mp3s for everyone is just asking for trouble.
 
That is exactly the type of story that forces people like me to threaten to fire employees who have MP3s on their work PCs.

Understand that the company has no choice, and they can't just look the other way. Because if I let it go, and the company ends up paying for it, someone's going to be looking for a new job.
 
Well....if the server were set up correctly, then you could do this legally. If they owned all of the CD's, and the server was set to allow read only on the MP3 files, then it could be argued that it's not illegal because you own the music and letting employees play it would be no different than an employee playing his CD loud enough for everyone to hear. This argument has actually won a few times, but it's funny how the RIAA hides those types of judegments.
 
I will have to stand by the company and not side with the RIAA. In this case the RIAA is just being a "bloody bully".. they dont have the same rights as the BSA in dealing with things there is no crime involved if the cd's were ripped cd's of employees, or if the company itself bought cd's for its own database. Its not fair for the RIAA to be going thru things like this. First the $1M was outrageous for a crime that wasnt even what they list as their prime competeor. Yes they are representing the Recording Industry, but you got to realise that this is not what they were fighting for a few months back.

The server was on a internal network with a firewall. So the only sharing / streaming is within the network. People like to listen to music at work and you know what I dont give a fsck of the RIAA thinks of it. I know several companies that have an MP3 server, and their Server is based solely for employees who want to listen to music. This is so that employee machines dont bog down with Mp3's or run out of space (its happened). The thing is here they go ranting about MP3 servers while companies like Sonic Blue and others are building home based MP3 servers with video recording facilities of a Tivo. YOu konw what how come the MPAA isnt going after those companies.

True its definately illegal if your got mp3's on a local network that you dont own cd's to. However if an employee wants his cd ripped and on the local network I dont see a legal issue considering someone in the company owns it. While he will be the one primarly listening to that cd, but others might to.. its like sharing a cd when your friend wants it for a while..

RIAA is SUCK!

TGG

Edit: It seems the RIAA is trying to make the MP3 format illegal. Its quite evident by its actions against the company, they probably want MP3's in a corporate/home enviorment illegal. While they do have the clout to do so, you got to realise that there willl always be the underbelly that will continue with the tradition. Its too late to stop it boys, you should have 5 years ago when this technology was so new. The only thing you can do is suck up and get on with the changes in the enviorment..
 


<< Well....if the server were set up correctly, then you could do this legally. If they owned all of the CD's, and the server was set to allow read only on the MP3 files, then it could be argued that it's not illegal because you own the music and letting employees play it would be no different than an employee playing his CD loud enough for everyone to hear. This argument has actually won a few times, but it's funny how the RIAA hides those types of judegments. >>



Actualy, this is considered a public performance, and is only legal if you buy music specific for this purpose. It is not leagal to just play a radio loud enough for everyone to hear in a place of business.

Armani
 


<< That is exactly the type of story that forces people like me to threaten to fire employees who have MP3s on their work PCs.

Understand that the company has no choice, and they can't just look the other way. Because if I let it go, and the company ends up paying for it, someone's going to be looking for a new job. >>



That's why all my mp3's (at work) are kept on CD-RW's.
 
email tip... meaning one of the employees is a no-good snitch.

riaa is suck, this company is stoopid (running a dedicated server? are you kidding me?) settlement was too high.

It is not leagal to just play a radio loud enough for everyone to hear in a place of business.

has this been held up in court? or is this just your guess?
 


<< It is not leagal (sic) to just play a radio loud enough for everyone to hear in a place of business. >>

From a copyright point of view it IS legal to play a radio loud enough for everyone to hear. There's even a radio station here whose main advertising tag-line is "Your number 1 at-work radio station". I'd think the RIAA or other entertainment-industry bloodsuckers would stop that before they worried about someone's private network. But you never know, we're out of the realm of rational thought with those folks.

However, as I understand it there are several shades of gray here. While it would not be illegal to play a radio loud enough for everyone in your office to hear, it would be illegal to play CD's you bought from Wal-Mart as entertainment in your nightclub without paying licensing fees for public performance. If you wanted to play the radio as entertainment in your nightclub that would be legal, too. In the case of radio, the licensing fee for public performance was already paid by the radio station - all the listeners don't have to pay it a second time!

The article says it's not even clear if what the company did was against the law - but it was obviously easier (or cheaper) just to pay the bastards than to try and fight it and find out. That's what I don't like about it - it's nothing more than intimidation tactics and strong-arm robbery.
 
Companies almost has to put music files on a lan server, putting mp3s on the desk would kill the companys precious PC resource ie Pentium II 300s with 4-6GB hard drives.
 
As long as the files were distributed internally and not taken home or distributed outside the company, I don't see the problem.

What's next? RIAA will say that if I'm playing a CD when a friend comes over, that I have to shut it off unless he owns a copy too lest I fall victim to copyright infringement lawsuits.
rolleye.gif
:| :|

nik
 


<< Well....if the server were set up correctly, then you could do this legally. If they owned all of the CD's, and the server was set to allow read only on the MP3 files, then it could be argued that it's not illegal because you own the music and letting employees play it would be no different than an employee playing his CD loud enough for everyone to hear. This argument has actually won a few times, but it's funny how the RIAA hides those types of judegments. >>

lol! This is IDENTICAL to the legal reasoning that MP3.COM attempted to use and got slam dunked out of court. The courts didn't buy it.
 
We as consumers have a duty to phase out the RIAA - and maybe eventually the MPAA.

The RIAA needs to be sued for all of it's double licensing schemes.. Like.. if I pay a royalty when I buy music cdrs (yup, royalty), they why the hell can I still be prosecuted for burning all sorts of random music to them?
 


<< From a copyright point of view it IS legal to play a radio loud enough for everyone to hear. There's even a radio station here whose main advertising tag-line is "Your number 1 at-work radio station". I'd think the RIAA or other entertainment-industry bloodsuckers would stop that before they worried about someone's private network. But you never know, we're out of the realm of rational thought with those folks.

However, as I understand it there are several shades of gray here. While it would not be illegal to play a radio loud enough for everyone in your office to hear, it would be illegal to play CD's you bought from Wal-Mart as entertainment in your nightclub without paying licensing fees for public performance. If you wanted to play the radio as entertainment in your nightclub that would be legal, too. In the case of radio, the licensing fee for public performance was already paid by the radio station - all the listeners don't have to pay it a second time!

The article says it's not even clear if what the company did was against the law - but it was obviously easier (or cheaper) just to pay the bastards than to try and fight it and find out. That's what I don't like about it - it's nothing more than intimidation tactics and strong-arm robbery. >>



I will take a small portion of my comment back. By Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 114 D.1.C, it is leagal to have a radio loud.

However, it is not for tapes, cd's, or records. See here for more information.

Armani
 
I bet they were using the company's bandwidth to download MP3's. My last company did so. They had about 120 gigs worth of MP3's. They were quite proud of their collection. Any one know if the snitch got a finders fee?

 
However, it is not for tapes, cd's, or records. See here for more information.

question posed was:

I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

imho, this is different from just playing it while you're at your desk working.
 
remember when it was about the music and not the money?

Oh BTW has anyone seen the recent gateway ads? theyre spending money on 30 second slots to say that they support file sharing
 
little interesting tidbit... i read an article in WIRED that said Xerox research showed 20% of file-sharing users as being responsible for 98% of filesharing traffic.
 
I always love people's utter stupidity, it is a virtual confession of supporting the theft of copyrighted works or other dishonest/illegal behavior when one refers to a person as a "snitch" because they did the right thing. I use the word stupidity because their position is completely indefensible morally or ethically, but they're too stupid to even realize it. It's as if they're almost saying "Curse those honest people, us dishonest types would be able to get away with a lot more without them around." lol! Brilliant!
 
it is a virtual confession of supporting the theft of copyrighted works or other dishonest/illegal behavior when one refers to a person as a "snitch" because they did the right thing.

on the contrary, i do not support the theft of anything.

i called that person a snitch, because that's what he/she is.

btw, just because i don't advocate theft does not mean i think this person is some saint. i can just picture the type of person that would do this... the words "anal retentive" come to mind.
 
Shared drive for mp3's, who would do such a thing... Defininately not an intern who is accustom to moving from computer to computer all over the building... Uhh... Ohh.... :Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top