Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Loses Case Against Launch Media

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the matter-of-law dept.

The Courts 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."

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"RIAA loses" (5, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157181)

I can't wait for the day that headline becomes so commonplace I get bored of it.

IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157207)

Madonna is 51!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MADONNA!

I made it through the wilderness
Somehow I made it through
Didnt know how lost I was
Until I found you

I was beat incomplete
Id been had, I was sad and blue
But you made me feel
Yeah, you made me feel
Shiny and new

Chorus:

Like a virgin
Touched for the very first time
Like a virgin
When your heart beats (after first time, with your heartbeat)
Next to mine

Gonna give you all my love, boy
My fear is fading fast
Been saving it all for you
cause only love can last

Youre so fine and youre mine
Make me strong, yeah you make me bold
Oh your love thawed out
Yeah, your love thawed out
What was scared and cold

MADONNA IS THE BEST!

Re:"RIAA loses" (4, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157227)

It's music to my ears.

Re:"RIAA loses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157479)

On that note, you can hear the death bells ringing for the RIAA.

Re:"RIAA loses" (4, Funny)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157749)

Be careful! You are perilously close to infringing their rights to the sound of their own defeat :)

Re:"RIAA loses" (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159285)

RIAA: making Microsoft look ethical since 2003.

(The BSA lets you go when you only pay for the software you actually use.)

Re:"RIAA loses" (2, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159315)

Since it is taking place in the courts, wouldn't it be a matter of public record, and therefore in the public domain? Next /. headline: RIAA's swan song goes Open Source!

Re:"RIAA loses" (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157379)

Re:"RIAA loses" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29158803)

You use Firefox running on Gentoo in English!

You're reading Slashdot! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29160725)

Don't you think he'd know that?

Although, yes, I can see how that may come in handy should he ever forget.

Re:"RIAA loses" (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29164719)

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:"RIAA loses" (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157417)

I don't think I would get bored if it was less that 2 or 3 times a day!

Re:"RIAA loses" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157489)

I can wait for you little bitches to grow up and understand that this isn't a religious matter. You're a bunch of brainwashed zealots like the religious.

Re:"RIAA loses" (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157919)

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 I shall now show in my second portion."

Yeah, you don't mean any of it THAT way. So? Let's imagine you have a lot of power or influence, like you own a TV network and can expect your message to get to millions of people, or you are personally famous. You think the protests against the RIAA are illogical, the RIAA has a right to protect their intellectual property, and the slashdot groupthink is just because a lot of people are lazy thieves. I submit that, if you started with a huge advantage or three in winning the debate, your claims would still lose the debate for the RIAA, because you can't resist dragging something completely unrelated into it. The RIAA would probably feel that, with friends like you, who needs enemies? And since you don't have that sort of influence, why do you expect your position to do any good at all? It's like being 5'3" and showing up to join the Lakers.

Re:"RIAA loses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29160057)

Goddammit, why is there no '-1 incoherent' option for moderation?

Re:"RIAA loses" (1)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157707)

Would it ever get old?

Re:"RIAA loses" (1)

deathy_epl+ccs (896747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29158625)

I think they'll go out of business first.

Re:"RIAA loses" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29159871)

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:"RIAA loses" (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29164741)

The day they stop suing poor people who can't afford lawyers is the day they lose their revenue source...

Re:"RIAA loses" (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29165805)

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:"RIAA loses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29160633)

Wait, what? It's happening all the time. If you look carefully, you can even see some kind of development.

RIAA loses money from fair use...
RIAA loses perspective...
RIAA loses temper...
RIAA loses trust...
RIAA loses accountability...
RIAA loses credibility...
RIAA loses it...
RIAA loses last shred of support...
RIAA has nothing left to lose.
RIAA: connection lost.

Re:"RIAA loses" (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172243)

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.

Fuck you RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157211)

Hurry up and die already. You're clogging the tubes!

It is interactive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157231)

It reacts to input from its users. It is interactive.

Don't let the evil actions of the RIAA cloud reality. It's interactive. Most people would claim that monkeys are luminous if it somehow hurt the RIAA.

Re:It is interactive... (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157293)

Most people would claim that monkeys are luminous if it somehow hurt the RIAA.

Is this close enough? [slashdot.org]

Re:It is interactive... (3, Funny)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157311)

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 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157451)

Something like "Redundant Without Prejudice", that would lower a comment's score without affecting karma. Clearly the Parent was being composed as its predecessor was was submitted. It would be nice to mod it down for the benefit of people reading at 1, but I won't penalize somebody for something like this. If it were submitted 20 minutes later, that would be a different story,.

Re:It is interactive... (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157731)

Surely you could have linked to a picture of Andi (the Rhesus monkey genetically modified to glow under a microscope in 2001) or these marmosets [smh.com.au]

Re:It is interactive... (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157333)

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:It is interactive... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157341)

Dangit... correction: "Also, overrated just isn't quite enough."

Sorry.

Re:It is interactive... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29158997)

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:It is interactive... (2, Insightful)

Bensam123 (1340765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159189)

A lot of people would rate -1: Stupid for things they don't agree with regardless of the content of what is being posted.

Re:It is interactive... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29161833)

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:It is interactive... (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29164779)

That'll work for about five seconds...

Re:It is interactive... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173619)

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:It is interactive... (2, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157405)

You're absolutely correct.

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 jargon.

Re:It is interactive... (1)

Quothz (683368) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159361)

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:It is interactive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157425)

By your measure terrestrial radio stations are interactive as well. They play listener requests, change music selection according to popularity and demand, etc.

Common definitions and legal definitions aren't the same thing. Don't conflate the two. I'm not going to read the 42-page legal document to find out but I imagine the legal definition of interactivity, at least with regard to radio stations, is different than simply reacting to input.

Re:It is interactive... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157545)

no more and no less than a regular AM/FM radio, you can turn it on or off, volume up or down, change stations but other than that i see no interactive to it, at least a local radio station that broadcasts (on either AM 530Khz to 1710Khz or FM 87Mhz to 108Mhz) has a local request line you can call on a telephone and make requests or dedicate a song to that special someone

Re:It is interactive... (2, Insightful)

not-my-real-name (193518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29158839)

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? (2, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157235)

Does this mean that Pandora does not have to pay per performance interactive service royalty rates anymore? Isn't this huge for Pandora type services?

Re:Pandora? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157289)

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:Pandora? (2, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157319)

Right. I just read over the whole decision, and other than the details of the specific implementation, the overall logic of the random/unpredictable nature of the playlist is what makes it non-interactive. In the LAUNCH service in question, users rated songs individually as well, and were also able to skip them as you are in Pandora. I think this stencils pretty directly onto the other service, right? users are unable to choose the specific song in either case, only preferences.

Re:Pandora? (4, Funny)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157551)

Right. I just read over the whole decision......

You read all 42 pages??? You must be new to /.! Nobody reads it all here.

Re:Pandora? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157671)

'read over' isn't the same as actually reading everything.

Re:Pandora? (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29164833)

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:Pandora? (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 4 years ago | (#29168087)

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
You might be new here if you haven't figured out what "/." means....
/Sarcasm

Re:Pandora? (1)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171905)

Well, I used to be a paid Launchcast subscriber before it was flushed by Yahoo. That about sums up the experience for paid subscribers. Unpaid subscribers had limited skips and a few commercials now and again.

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 listen to at that time. It was pretty amazing.

Re:Pandora? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29161877)

Let me get this straight... stations get financially punished for being user friendly? There's something disturbingly not right with this viewpoint. It's even stranger than taxing diesel for vehicles but not fuel for heating your house.

Pandora (2, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157243)

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:Pandora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157325)

I give Pandora referrer credit for every song I torrent.

RIAA is like a weed, pull it out by its roots!!

Re:Pandora (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172945)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157297)

Does this mean I don't have to pay for music anymore?

What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157307)

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:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157359)

I think what they mean it in the sense that it's a direct application of statute, not a matter of debate, just clarification and determining if the law as written applies. (AFAIK)

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157363)

I know Wikipedia is often shunned, but this page [wikipedia.org] might still give you some insight.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157373)

I think "a matter of law" means what Congress wrote when they wrote the lawbook; "a matter of fact" means what Yahoo did (or did not) do in this particular case.

If nobody disagrees about what Yahoo did, and the judge thinks that Congress gave them permission to do it, then the judge closes the case there and then, and everyone goes home (without any question being put to the jury).

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157423)

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, that isn't murder. So the charge isn't sustained on the very face of it, regardless if the facts alleged are true.

A matter of fact is then one where the specific facts are what is in question. The charges are valid per the law, in that if the facts are as alleged they'd support the charge. The question is now if those are indeed the facts or not.

So when something is dismissed as "a matter of law" what it means is that the party bringing the action (criminal or civil) has no idea what they are talking about. They are trying to misapply the law. Even if everything they say about the defendant/respondent is true, it still wouldn't sustain the charges because of the law.

Also one of the important factors is who decides this. In a court, the judge is the judge of law, the jury the judge of fact. What that means is the judge decides if a case has the merit to go to trial, and what is relevant to allow in under the law and so on. They decide how the law applies to the case. The jury then just decides the facts of the case. They are presented with evidence, and told what standard to apply. Their job is to decide if the facts presented sustain the charges or not.

not quite (4, Informative)

hawk (1151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159227)

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:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (2, Informative)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157471)

An issue can be decided as a matter of "law" or "fact". If it a factual matter, than the final arbiter will be the factfinder which is usually a jury, but can be a judge, in a bench trial. However, some issues are considered to be so obvious, or of a public policy or legal nature, such that Congress or the appellate courts have deemed it appropriate to leave the decision up to the judge, rather than the factfinder (jury). This is a very important distinction. First, if an issue is a matter of law, an appellate court can decide the issue "de novo" - meaning that they consider the issue anew, and are not bound by the decision of the lower court. In contrast, appellate courts are required to respect the factual determinations as the factfinder is deemed to have superior information - the ability to view the witnesses' testimony and ascertain its credibility rather than reading a written transcript, for example. So, to apply the standard to this case. If the factfinder at the trial level found that the service was interactive, the appellate court would have no obligation to respect that determination if it was a question of law, however if it was a question of fact, than the factual determination must be respected unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or is clearly erroneous.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

jasonwc (939262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157523)

BTW, phrases such as "matter of law" are terms of art, and the usage is often different from that of lay English (say, that you would find in a standard dictionary). While the definition can sometimes be derived from the word alone, it's best to look it up in a dedicated law dictionary such as Black's Law Dictionary. There are many issues which courts have deemed to be "matters of law" that are clearly factual in nature. It's a policy determination - and thus the distinction can not always be derived from logic alone.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (3, Interesting)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157483)

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? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157951)

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? (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157511)

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:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29158571)

> No Charge.

Pro bono. Write it off on your taxes.

Thanks.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (3, Funny)

hawk (1151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159235)

>No charge.

*shudder*

C'mon, a country lawyer should know to never point that out or bring attention to it :)

hawk, esq.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29159319)

When I said "no charge" I was humorously responding to his humorous statement "IANAL - nor can I afford one to answer this question". Sorry if you didn't get that we were both kidding.

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 4 years ago | (#29160137)

I got that, or I wouldn't have jumped in with my own joke!

hawk

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173361)

He does work at slashdot pro bono. Unfortunately, Sony Bono had a say in the stupid copyright laws...

Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173153)

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).

fags will lose their case against society (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157327)

in a logical society we must accept that fags are a waste of resources. dirty fags drain society and molest children.

Court Costs Paid? (3, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157357)

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?

Re:Court Costs Paid? (2, Informative)

Legal Penguin (114844) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157629)

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 statements of "undisputed fact") or at trail by the finder of fact.IAAL; IANYL.

Re:Court Costs Paid? (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157933)

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.

Spon6ce (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157493)

ofone single puny *BSD is dead. It's best to try yes, I work for short of a miracle that *BSD 0wned. And has instead came as A complete good manners BSD'S FILESYSTEM OpenBSD. How many become an unwanted of events today, as little overhead bad for *BSD. As Base for FreeBSD irrecoverable ago, 8any of you look at the faster, cheaper, Believe their or mislead the Failure, its corpse

You FAiL It (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157539)

here, but what is Around a8e in need a relatively world. GNAA members WANT THEM THERE. of th3 founders of indecision and NIGGER ASSOCIATION

Nelson said it best.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29157549)

HA HA!

Irrelevant -- service already defunct (2, Informative)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#29157775)

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:Irrelevant -- service already defunct (1)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171915)

Yes, it made me very very very sad. :(

Grooveshark (1)

Boawk (525582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29158133)

Grooveshark allows you to search for individual songs, play them, make playlists, etc. Is grooveshark doomed to become RIAA fodder?

Re:Grooveshark (2, Informative)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29162607)

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? (0, Offtopic)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#29161989)

You don't hear a lot from them in the news anymore. They've got their big iron, I suppose, and were hyping their mainframes as more cost effective to run than clusters of computers. You don't hear about a lot of AIX out there anymore, even though Sun went down the tubes. Seems like every time I see a data center or a CRM application these days it's either Windows or Linux and usually web-based.

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 were talking about how all their new SGI stuff was going to be Windows NT based and they were getting into storage and stuff. If I were a meaner fellow I'd have asked the guy why I should buy his stuff rather than IBM or Sun, who did exactly the same stuff and who I knew would be around in a couple years. They went bankrupt not much later.

Sun likewise lost their relevance. I actually did some contract work for them a few years back and as far as I could tell most of what went on inside the company involved process black-belts talking about how they worked and engineers scoffing at the design of the Linux kernel. As far as I could tell the corporate philosophy was that they'd build cool stuff and people would buy it because it was cool. Except they hadn't built cool stuff at that point in years.

So now here we are with IBM. They used to have a pretty solid business focus -- some news would come out about a new trend in the market and IBM would be right there almost immediately. Near as I can tell now they just push people around to whatever country happens to be cheapest at the moment and assume that you can replaced experienced employees with cheap guys with no loss of momentum.

Meanwhile Google's right there doing all the cool stuff like Sun used to do and they're got their thumb on the industry kind of like IBM used to do. If I had to place a bet on the industry in a decade, my money would be on Google and Apple as the big winners and IBM as the next company acquired by Oracle.

Yeah (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29163417)

FUCK RIAA

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law? (1)

honestmonkey (819408) | more than 4 years ago | (#29165403)

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 and have the song/album. And since it's "just like a radio station", no worries, right?

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law?

Re:Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173493)

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.

The RIAA - poisoning the well for everybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29176723)

I just wanted to rant a bit, so sorry if I come off a little bit off topic... The way the RIAA's idea of "performance royalties" is undoubtedly flawed, and it really ends up hurting both the little guys and the listeners. Under the current law, the US Office of Copyright has authorized the RIAA (also known as SoundExchange) to collect royalties on the performance of any copyrighted material. Problem is, the (meager) portion of money that the RIAA pays out to these artists & labels is limited ONLY to RIAA member labels.... But wait, they're ALLOWED to collect for ALL copyrighted recordings - RIAA member or NOT! Now think about how this impacts underground music - an artist copyrights his work, and he wants to get it played on underground web radio stations. Even if said artist provides his music to a web radio station without any expectation of royalties, the RIAA can still levy their fees on the station. Personally, I own a web radio station which plays one style of underground electronic music - we make enough money basically to keep the station running, but nothing more... In an attempt to bring in an extra buck or two (we all have day jobs), we've started a record label with the intention of selling music directly from our site... Now hilariously enough, under the current regime, we'd be paying the RIAA royalties even on the RECORDINGS THAT WE OWN!

Honestly the RIAA is a good for nothing turd hanger-on of the music industry. It costed them BILLIONS in overhead just to develop some sort of cohesive infrastructure...... Yet they only take in millions of dollars per year (which rarely do any artists see shit!)

How bout this... I'm going to start the Hamburger Industry Association of America... And every hamburger, whether it is sold, eaten, or it just appears on TV, will require that I'm paid my cut! I will represent the Hamburger Industry, yet most of the money I take in will go to paying me and a few other fatcats. So I suggest all you hamburger eaters out there - get ready to pony up! Oh yeah, and if you dare contest me, I'll take you to court (on the hamburger industry's dime of course - this is their crusade as much as it is ours)!!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>