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!

MIT's New Music Sharing Network

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the share-the-music dept.

Music 214

tessaiga writes "The New York Times has an article about a new project at MIT to replace music file sharing over P2P with sharing over cable TV (reg free link). The Library Access To Music Project relies on the more relaxed copyright restrictions on analog transmission formats like cable. From the article: "M.I.T. students, faculty and staff can choose from 16 channels of music and can schedule 80-minute blocks of time to control a channel. The high-tech D.J. can select, rewind or fast-forward the songs via an Internet-based control panel. Mr. Winstein and Mr. Mandel created the collection of CD's after polling students." The article goes on to point out that this is (hopefully) legal under current laws because MIT already has a blanket license to broadcast music over analog media, and recording songs played over this system "would be no different from recording songs from conventional FM broadcasts"."

cancel ×

214 comments

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

first? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318123)

first?

God help them! (5, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318124)

If MIT students can't find methods to get MP3 off the 'net, nimbly sidestepping the R*AA and other assorted vultures... well; do they really deserve to be at MIT?

-

Re:God help them! (1)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318489)

Umm... I think you're thinking of Harvard Law School there. This is not a *technical* issue, it's a *legal* one, and AFAIK they don't teach law at MIT...

That's all nice and well (3, Insightful)

Sadiq (103621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318125)

It's all nice and well till the technology takes off and soon they'll find the nice hole in the licensing that allows them to do it gets shut off.

Maybe i'm just cynical.

Re:That's all nice and well (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318151)

Maybe i'm just cynical.

Yes you are cynical. The **AAs are just against anything which says DIGITAL, however if you talk FM, cable, Airwave where the Blasphemous word does not appear, they seem to be pretty okay with it. What MIT is doing is creating a simple cable radio network, and this should not be a problem with RIAA

Re:That's all nice and well (1, Insightful)

rknop (240417) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318194)

however if you talk FM, cable, Airwave where the Blasphemous word does not appear, they seem to be pretty okay with it.

They are??? Haven't you heard the words "analog hole?"

Mind you, that's not the kind of "hole" that comes to mind when I think about the **AA....

-Rob

Re:That's all nice and well (1, Funny)

in7ane (678796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318202)

If anything it will be good for RIAA - just watch Kazaa fill up with poor quality recordings that people make form this.

Oh, wait, that's already the case...

Re:That's all nice and well (3, Funny)

jandrese (485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318276)

Don't radio stations have all sorts of restrictions on how much control the users have over the playlists? IIRC, the restrictions range from: the radio station being strictly prohibited from publishing its playlist, request shows requiring at least an hour between when someone calls in a song to when they actually play it, DJs being required to talk over the beginning and end of the songs, and requring the DJ to not tell you the name of the song until after it has played.

This MIT system seems to put a lot of power in the hands of the students, which is just the sort of thing the RIAA hates.

Radio 1984? (1)

87C751 (205250) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318360)

Don't radio stations have all sorts of restrictions on how much control the users have over the playlists?
Not that I've ever heard, and not as draconian as you describe. Citation, please! Oh, and they're "listeners", not "users".

Re:That's all nice and well (2, Informative)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318374)

I think that's more of a restriction made by the station management. I break all of those rules. Of course, I'm on college radio, so I don't have to run my playlists past Clear Channel ahead of time like most commercial stations do.

Re:That's all nice and well (5, Interesting)

Oscillatory (455587) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318399)


Don't radio stations have all sorts of restrictions on how much control the users have over the playlists? IIRC, the restrictions range from: the radio station being strictly prohibited from publishing its playlist, request shows requiring at least an hour between when someone calls in a song to when they actually play it, DJs being required to talk over the beginning and end of the songs, and requring the DJ to not tell you the name of the song until after it has played.

Some of these are the kinds of restrictions that are being imposed on licensed webcasters, including e.g. webcast from a college radio station .. or at least things like can't publish a song on the playlist before it's been played, can't play an entire album, or more than three songs from the same album within 2 hours (something like that).

Broadcast radio has no such restrictions except as self-imposed by bad corporate radio .. college radio certainly doesn't require any of the above.

Re:That's all nice and well (2, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318665)

Ah, it appears that I was misinformed. I guess these are merely corporate radio limitations, not anything mandated by the song licensing agencies.

Re:That's all nice and well (1)

op00to (219949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318469)

I worked at a radio station for a year. There were no FCC restrictions on how we created, played, and published our playlists. They were available in the music journals, online, and we would send them by snail mail if you requested.

Similar to the streaming fees? (3, Informative)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318434)

"Streaming fees" to me always reminded me of "steaming feces." Anyway, I wonder if MIT will be caught by some of the other legal challenges to the analog hole.

Anybody remember this?
Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has upheld Copyright Office's earlier decision that traditional radio stations have to pay royalties for streaming their traditional radio broadcasts over the Net (process is called simulcasting).

Historically, American radio stations have had weird exception from royalties -- they don't have to pay anything for artists or record labels (they pay for songwriters though) for playing their music on radio, unlike most other radio stations in the world. And to complicate this issue, American Net radio stations have to pay such royalties. Now, the court fight was about this exemption rule and about applying it to simulcasting. Radio stations argued that their material that they air through radio-waves, is exempt from royalties even if broadcasted over the Net. This obviously puts smaller, Net-only broadcasters in losing side as they need to cough up to RIAA every time they play music on their station, while benemoths such as Clear Channel (world's largest radio station owner) don't have such costs involved.

"The DMCA's silence on AM/FM webcasting gives us no affirmative grounds to believe that Congress intended to expand the protections contemplated," the Philadelphia appeals decision reads. "The exemptions the (DMCA) afforded to radio broadcasters were specifically intended to protect only traditional radio broadcasting, and did not contemplate protecting AM/FM webcasting."


Scratch ? (5, Funny)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318132)

The high-tech D.J. can select, rewind or fast-forward the songs via an Internet-based control panel.

Can he do it fast enough to reproduce the vinyl scratch effect ?

the sue cycle (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318140)

A good idea in foresigh, but we all know the RIAA will demand some insane fee as they aren't traditional broad-casters or slaves to MTV...and when they don't pay, RIAA will send an army of lawyers after them...

Re:the sue cycle (1)

mrsev (664367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318426)

Not sure they will. MIT is not some kid swapping songs. They have both political and legal might and Im sure do not like to be pushed around.

The second point is that if they go after this then they will threaten radio stations who Im sure would love to get a chance to hit back. Remember that MIT does have a license to analog broadcast. This has been very well defended for decades. Providing the transmission is analog then they are untouchable.

Always nice to stick it to the *IAA.

and you rip off the mask... (3, Funny)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318143)

of the evil-doer, and it is the RIAA [riaa.org] , who shakes his bony fist and exclaims, "darn you meddling computer scientists!"

Re:and you rip off the mask... (1)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318247)

of the evil-doer, and it is the RIAA, who shakes his bony fist and exclaims, "darn you meddling computer scientists!"

I prefer, "CURSE YOU, POWERPUFF GIRLS!!!!!"

Re:and you rip off the mask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318318)

"I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling geeks!"

Microsoft Funded (5, Interesting)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318149)

Quote at the bottom of the page:
LAMP is funded by the iCampus Alliance (MIT/Microsoft Research)

http://lamp.mit.edu [mit.edu]

Okay, slashdot... does Microsoft get any props here?

(oh, sh!t, there goes my Karma.)

Davak

Re:Microsoft Funded (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318208)

Old billyboy was in Au not long ago ditching on the RIAA, sounds like a good way to get cheap karma.

Re:Microsoft Funded (3, Informative)

maan (21073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318273)

BUT...they run it on linux! Check out http://lamp.mit.edu/lamp-aup.pdf where they detail the setup and mention that it runs on linux.

Maan

Woooo (0)

The Tyro (247333) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318452)

l337 m4d pr0p5 to Bill Gates!!

Hmmm... just doesn't quite roll off the tongue like I thought it would...

Uh, never mind.

Re:Microsoft Funded (5, Insightful)

kaiidth (104315) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318538)

Microsoft are funding a bunch of campus style software and such. iCampus [mit.edu] is one example of this, a large MIT research thingy, which covers funding for all sorts of projects (I seem to recall there being, for example, a student shuttle-bus which reports its location via gps to the web...). It's actually fairly fragmented; like most large lumps of university money it has been taken up by people as and when rather than as part of a Grand Plan.

Well, no matter how it appears, certainly if you ask MS or MIT they will tell you there is a grand plan - for sure. But relax, Microsoft have been throwing funding at universities for 'wired campus' style projects on a regular basis as far as I know, and as yet it has met with limited success from their perspective. They would love to own the education market, of course. They just haven't got a decent grip on it yet, and not for lack of trying.

You have to realise that research and industrial funding is an uneasy alliance at best. Good researchers attract funding whilst controlling the conditions under which it is given; bad researchers accept funding that comes with strings. In this case, MIT are, I suspect, in the driver's seat. This makes them relatively unusual; many researchers are rather naive and, on receipt of a few flattering comments and hints of 'long term collaborations', 'special relationships' or similar, will immediately go for it no matter what the conditions. Some even believe that they are the ones doing the 'using'. Having worked for one of these types, I can assure you that these researchers are wrong (do I sound disillusioned? Oh well).

It's worth keeping your eyes open, anyway; if you see anything using tablet PCs, MS DRM, heavy use of .NET, and 'Learning through [demonstration/play]' with [insert microsoft technologies], then you can more or less assume that the researcher is a Microsoft prostitute of some kind. But this particular project seems too 'free' to be particularly blessed by MS.

Don't know if that helps.

Re:Microsoft Funded (1)

kaiidth (104315) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318596)

And, er, to annoyingly reply to myself, this [mit.edu] is why 'edutainment' is a good sign of active Microsoft involvement. Randy Hinrichs, Microsoft Research's Group Research Manager for Learning Science and Technology, is a major believer in the use of 'learning through play'. The LAMP project, on the other hand, is just a student project [mit.edu] , and therefore supported to the tune of $30,000. I suspect Microsoft had veto power on it, though. Um.

Off now.

they'll use it (2, Interesting)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318153)

I'm a college student, and I can honestly say that if I had this I would use it.

I would use it to record all the songs I didn't already have on mp3. And for all the songs I couldn't get through this system, I would still hit the p2p. I don't supposed they have Super Eurobeat [avexnet.or.jp] or garage bands [cdbaby.com] music do they? No? The store doesn't either? Downloads for me.

Way to go. Not. (4, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318186)

Am I the only one who thinks that, at this very moment, a RIAA lawyer will be drafting notes that use your comment as the centrepiece for a legal motion to get this MIT project shut down?

The way to combat RIAA, etc isn't by shouting from the rooftops that you'll pirate/whatever you want to call it their music from now till doomsday. The way to combat them is by supporting non-RIAA artists, by supporting innovative legitimate music-buying options such as the Apple iTunes store, by buying second-hand CDs, etc.

Giving someone the very ammunition that they need to shoot you down is suicide. Perhaps when you graduate to the real world you'll learn that lesson.

Yes, way to go. (2, Insightful)

leomekenkamp (566309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318345)

According to your (Score:4, Insightful), no, you are not the only one, but you are incorrect anyway ;-). What if we were talking about FM radio here?

Reread the original post with FM radio in mind, and then tell me the RIAA will have lawyers drafting notes to have all FM radio stations shutdown because of the comments of people that say they are recording songs from FM...

Re:Yes, way to go. (2, Interesting)

HardYakka (265884) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318445)

Actually, there are rules that prevent radio stations from


1. Playing more than 3 songs from a specific album in an hour.
2. Playing more than 4 songs by a specific artist in an hour.
2. Announcing their playlist to the public in advance.
3. Playing entire songs without voiceover/overlap

These rules are to prevent the exact scenario you are proposing.

Re:Yes, way to go. (1, Insightful)

slimak (593319) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318481)

don't forget...

5. playing high quality music

Re:Yes, way to go. (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318644)

My favorite radio station has had their playlist up on their website for months...
DJs also frequently tell you what's comin up in the next 5-10 songs.

Re:Yes, way to go. (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318584)

Realise that if this endeavour is used as a thinly-veiled mass piracy scheme (as the grandfather post suggested), then RIAA will come down on it like a ton of bricks.

The average FM radio station has to comply with the copyright terms set by RIAA and other copyright holders. If a radio station was set up specifically with the aim of promoting recordings, or if it didn't jump through the relevant legal hoops, then it would be shut down faster than you could say "Britney Spears".

Re:Way to go. Not. (3, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318463)

Excuse me "Mr. +4 Interesting" but the Apple iTunes store is populated with thousands of artists and songs whose record labels are part of the RIAA. The iTunes store also works with the RIAA to ensure the music is delivered in a way so as to limit widespread illegal distribution of the songs downloaded from the service. iTunes is as much an experiment for Apple as it is for the RIAA.

Re:Way to go. Not. (4, Interesting)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318564)

Exactly. But it's a legal alternative to the traditional buy-a-CD-of-twelve-songs-even-though-you-might-onl y-like-two-of-them model. I wasn't suggesting that it was independent of RIAA, only that it was one of the many legal alternatives that challenges RIAA's status quo.

If in twelve months time, 10, 15 or even 20 percent (to use arbitrary figures off the top of my head) of the music being bought by 10-25 year-olds is through online buy-just-what-you-want stores, then that'll be a very big wake-up call to RIAA and the major labels.

In that scenario (which most probably happen eventually), the big boys will have to re-evaluate how they package, present and sell music on a wider scale. Right now, they probably look at iTunes as in interesting exercise, just as IBM once looked at PC clones in the same way. But sooner or later, just like IBM and those clones, RIAA et al will have to embrace a future that's not entirely of their making.

And the less involvement that RIAA has in the music industry of the future, the better for us all, regardless of where we live and/or our musical tastes.

Re:Way to go. Not. (3, Informative)

ckd (72611) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318498)

Am I the only one who thinks that, at this very moment, a RIAA lawyer will be drafting notes that use your comment as the centrepiece for a legal motion to get this MIT project shut down?

This is not some random student project. MIT has intellectual property lawyers.

innovative legitimate music-buying options

Music need not be purchased to be heard. MIT has paid ASCAP et al for blanket transmission licenses, like radio stations use. (BTW, the campus radio station, WMBR, used to be called the "Tech Broadcasting System" or WTBS, until some guy in Atlanta bought the call letters from them...now it stands for Walker Memorial Basement Radio, for its location.)

See their FAQ [mit.edu] , particularly the questions "Is this really legal? How?" and "Did you have lawyers look at this?"

Re:Way to go. Not. (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318654)

Licenses can be granted and licenses can be taken away. It'll only take a few "hey, now I stick it to RIAA and copy any music I want"-type posts, such as the one that I responded to for RIAA to petition that LAMP and any other similar projects should be shut down.

MIT may have intellectual property lawyers but don't forget that RIAA and its friends do. And, if it comes down to a major fight, I always put my money on the organisation with the deeper pockets for a legal fight and the stronger resolve. Now, I think we know who has the deeper pockets for a legal fight but who do you think has the greater will for that fight?

Do you think it's MIT, which is primarily concerned with research and teaching, or RIAA, which is only concerned with protecting the rights of its members and preserving the status quo?

IUMA.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318565)

Well, the title says it all. Go there! IUMA.com

analogue music (1)

squibix (602253) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318197)

With theis system you request music over the net, but it comes in over the cable tv cable, in analogue form. To quote the Boston Globe article [boston.com] on the supject:
The tough limits on digital music broadcasting didn't apply to analog broadcasting, the kind used by MIT's cable television systems. A cable broadcaster simply pays a blanket royalty fee to the major music licensing organizations, such as the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, or ASCAP.
Like most colleges, MIT already pays such a fee to those organizations. And a cable broadcaster doesn't pay the additional royalty to the record companies. So Winstein and Mendel built a network that takes orders over the Internet, but plays the music back over the cable system.

I would love to use it. (1)

PBKing (714387) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318298)

This is incredibly exciting. If this makes it, I can just format my music drive, and have all of that space free to use again. To me it's not about "having" all of the music I could ever want. I just want to be able to LISTEN to whatever music I want whenever I want. If that can be streamed to me, then FANTASTIC. I want on demand everything, and this is a good start.

RIAA Lawsuit in (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318158)

3....2....

MIT likes Britney (4, Funny)

kyoko21 (198413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318160)

Nice to see that the boys and girls at MIT likes Britney since "Baby One More Time" was number 4 most request song last week. Just can't get enough of Britney on the LAMP!

boston.com link: no reg req (2, Informative)

paiute (550198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318167)

boston.com [boston.com]

Next Step, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318173)

sox -t ossdsp -w -r44100 -c2 /dev/dsp -t raw -w -r44100 -c2 - | cat | /usr/local/bin/lame --quiet -r -s44.1 -x -m j -V 2 -b 56 -B 128 -h - - > shareme.mp3

we all know how lawmaking in the US works, right? (3, Insightful)

wouterke (653865) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318178)

it's not because this is legal right now, that it will remain legal until the end of times.

If this becomes popular, my bet is that the RIAA will buy themselves a law which will outlaw this. If it indeed is legal right now, that is...

Won't last long (2, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318195)

The loophole is that the data is converted from D to A? How hard is it to capture it back to digital? (and wait for the RIAA stormtroopers to knock on the door?)

Re:Won't last long (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318271)

Not hard at all. If you have quality recording equipment, nothing much is lost. Anyway, the RIAA calls D->A->D converted music 'degraded'.

Like I care. Playing in a metal band for a couple of years have busted my ears up good enough for me not to notice :)

Re:Won't last long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318459)

That would be A -> D -> A -> D -> A.

The music starts analogue, unless it's pure computer-generated (or otherwise digitally generated) sound, with no voice at all, and it ens analogue when leaving the speakers too.

And yes, each conversion D -> A or A -> D degrades the music, A -> D -> A (CD) being higher quality, and the best quality is obtained by never ever making the music digital (live performance).

Re:Won't last long (1)

maan (21073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318290)

I remember an argument being made at the height of the fight on music sharing was that the only reason today's file sharing is illegal is because you get a perfect digital copy. No degradation of quality. Recording a radio channel on tape, however, gives you a far lesser quality sound. So people (I forgot exactly whom) said that this was OK, but sharing MP3s was bad.

So under the same arguments, the MIT's system is legal, since they're giving you an analog stream. Even if you redigitize the analog stream, you have a worse file than what the server has on disk.

Maan

Re:Won't last long (1)

W32.Klez.A (656478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318346)

Um, MP3s are definitely not a perfect [free-music.com] digital copy.

Re:Won't last long (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318579)

>Um, MP3s are definitely not a perfect digital copy.

I've always wondered why that point was never put in front on trials. If people were to actually share CD-dumps (in ISO, WAV, FLAC or whatever format) then yes it would be a perfect digital copy of the original CD.

But MP3 files (or OGG, AAC, etc) are lossy CODECs, and as such the quality is lower than the original, just like a FM transmission or a CD-to-tape recording.

Already in place, silly. (2, Insightful)

AndyRooney (673004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318326)

Hi, have you been to college? Many, many, many colleges around the US that are too small to afford an FCC license and/or transmission equipment for a radio station broadcast over cable today. They have all the media in one place, you schedule blocks to DJ with training for the equipment, and users turn on their TV to listen. MIT *already has* pays royalties to do this. The absolute only thing different between this and a small college station is that they've automated the process so that you can do it from home, and thus don't need training for the board. Seriously, this isn't something that the RIAA doesn't know about, it's just a "Hm, cool." addition to an existing, approved system.

Re:Won't last long (1)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318418)

No more difficult than it is on any of the cable/sat music channels right now, all of which presumably have the blessing of the recording industry right now.

MIT's system is only marginally different in that someone you know or you might actually get to control what gets played once in a while. For the most part, though, you don't know what's being played and its like taping the radio, albeit with no commercials. Great if you want to put together canned mixes (the commercial variants being more highly genre specific).

Analog file sharing. (5, Insightful)

yoder (178161) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318212)

One step forward and two steps back. All in the name of progress and innovation. Instead of using the technology we have now and improving upon that, we have to go back and use previous technologies to bypass roadblocks set up by the multimedia mafiosi. Oh well, hope this pans out.

This Time Next Week... (2, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318214)

...there will be new laws in place outlawing this.

*sigh*

Re:This Time Next Week... (2, Interesting)

back_pages (600753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318265)

...there will be new laws in place outlawing this.

I wouldn't bank on it. It sounds like they have simply given end-user control to the same type of cable-tv music channels that practically every digital cable package includes. In essence, they have created a new and improved "Listener Request Show" on said cable music channels.

I'd think that any law against what MIT is doing would either prohibit broadcast of analog music (fat chance), listeners making requests for songs to play (fat chance), or be so acutely targeted at this LAMP system that it would beg to be tried in court.

My lesson for today is that ingenuity trumps legislation. The RIAA would be better off if they tried more things like 50 Cent putting golden tickets [cnn.com] in retail CD cases. Not that this is the only or best solution, but at least the guy is doing something new and untried to get his album platinum and discourage piracy.

A rose by any other name... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318217)

would stink as much. You cocksucking thieves will stoop to ANY level when it comes to stealing music and movies. Fuck the artists and the content producers that work along side them, right? YOU deserve to be paid for your work, but they don't. Uh huh.

Keep rationalizing your acts of thefts, you dirty whores. Fucking cocksucking digital terrorists!

Calm down Michael (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318249)

we'll keep stealing music and you keep being gay.

Re:A rose by any other name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318632)

SURE, mod me down for calling a spade a spade. Justify and rationalize your actions all you want, you filthy pack of thieves. Keep stealing food out of the mouth's of artists and their families, you vermin scumbags.

Re:A rose by any other name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318703)

I don't think anyone here cares if they steal or not. They are all rich rock stars anyway, if they only make $1 million this year instead of $2 million they can go fuck themselves. I program open source for a living and I DON'T GET PAID, therefore no one else should. Don't worry, I won't be starving, my mom buys me all the food I want (I live in her basement)

Analogue vs Digital (5, Informative)

rbbs (665028) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318242)

Would they not have a license problem as they can control the program by rewind and fast forward. In an analogue medium the flow is linear - this way, people can control the order of the music which probably means their analogue license won't cover it...

(In the uk at least, if you wish to broadcast music, there are controls on how many tracks from one album / label etc you can broadcast in a set period of time. )

great idea if it's legal though.

Re:Analogue vs Digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318472)

No, analogue != linear. Tape == linear (no matter if we are talking cassette tapes or DAT).

Highly interesting link... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318246)

Goatse guy's girlfriend [smutserver.com]

MIT using Debian on music sharing servers! (-1)

Debian Troll (676582) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318261)

Maybe RMS had more than a little to do with this decision due to his close ties with MIT, but recent postings on the Debian developer's list would make it seem that this great project for sharing music is being implemented using Debian servers and Debian technology.

The way the music sharing network will in fact be implemented is via a type of distributed apt-get network. When a user logs on, they automatically download a customised apt.sources file. The software then uses this apt.sources file to get the locations of other clients containing, in turn, further apt.sources files. Very quickly, this cascade of apt.sources requests means that you can locate pretty much any file you want. The client software then issues an apt-get call behind the scenes to start the music download. Brilliant! It gets better. Just say your favorite artist releases a new album. Downloading the new album is a simple matter of issuing an apt-get update command, and your old songs will be upgraded to the new songs. This is a victory for the hard working Debian developers and the students and staff of MIT. apt-get rock on dude!

All we need now (1, Flamebait)

lee7guy (659916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318262)

Is a Kazaa client capable of handling analog files. :)

So it's a free version of this? (1, Interesting)

barcodez (580516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318274)

It's basically a free version of Launch [yahoo.com] . Which is all very well but does it really take MIT to think this up. First time I used Launch I thought "wouldn't it be cool if this was free".

Good Luck.. Risky venture (0, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318279)

Part of the legal power that is being exerted is the very fact that its NOT analog signals..

The DMCA power that is being tossed around as a large stick applies only to digital format.

Since they are moving the audio do digital format, they potentially are asking for trouble.

Plus AFAIK a license to broadcast analog doesn't automatically give you a license to broadcast digital ( it makes sense that you should be able too, but when does law have to make sense? )

Re:Good Luck.. Risky venture (3, Insightful)

jareds (100340) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318395)

What the hell are you rambling about?

Part of the legal power that is being exerted is the very fact that its NOT analog signals..

LAMP broadcasts analog signals over cable, as permitted by MIT's licenses with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

Since they are moving the audio do digital format, they potentially are asking for trouble.

That's backwards. Audio from CD's, which are digital, is being broadcast as analog, just like any radio station does.

Plus AFAIK a license to broadcast analog doesn't automatically give you a license to broadcast digital ( it makes sense that you should be able too, but when does law have to make sense? )

The audio is not being broadcast digitally.

Such kind words (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318624)

Thanks for being so polite in pointing out that I mis-read one point in the summary.

I read it as they were broadcasting *digital* audio over their existing analog cable TV network and based my comment off that. ..

Are you always this fucking rude to people? ..

MIT and Pirated Files? (1)

code_echelon (709189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318294)

Its funny that some of the most noticeable things that come out of MIT are new ways to pirate software, movies and music. Like there aren't enough sources for them to find there Britney Spears albums already. This will be outlawed very quickly as it will soon be used as just another way to pirate copyrighted files. Also I am dissapointed that they took a step back and went back to analog instead of working on newer existing technologies.

It won't stay free for long. (2, Insightful)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318296)

They will still have to pay royalties on it, much in the way radio stations and web casters do. Remember the big fight last year over this? I'm sure they will try to argue that it is actually a webcast reguardless of the fact if it is analog or digital. Once they do that then they will have to pay per song played and that will stop it dead in it's tracks. If they do manage to convince the authorities it's more like on demand cable I'm sure their is or soon will be reg's that mandate royalties as well. Private networks are the way to swap music, throw a lan party, set up a wireless, or even run cable down the hall. When all else fails get yourself a portable or a hand full of DVD-RW's/CD-RW's and walk it over to a friends house. There are plenty of ways of sharing data that RIAA can't track/stop.

Re:It won't stay free for long. (1)

gertsenl (719370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318385)

Quote:
I'm sure they will try to argue that it is actually a webcast reguardless of the fact if it is analog or digital.

Ya, those bastards will probably even try to say it's a webcast regardless if it's broadcast over the web or on TV!

stealing or a thesis? (3, Insightful)

rudabager (702995) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318297)

What is stopping the students on campus from contributing their "CD's" in mp3 form to LAMP? If they could do this and bump up the channels then this would be exactly the same as p2p file sharing, the only difference is that its analog and the "offending" files arent on your computer. These students are doing the exact same thing as all the people the RIAA calls "theifs," only MIT is doing it in analog. Its stealing in digital but it's a PHD thesis in analog. How stupid are these laws?

Re:stealing or a thesis? (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318355)

The laws are stupid because they make a distinction between digital and analog. In the terms of music, an analog performance can be as good, or better quality than a digital one. A live performance is technically an analog performance (supposed to be anyways).

Wouldn't a pure digital performance be one generated by a computer in the first place? CD's and mp3's are just analog performances recorded on digital media (most of the time).

What's stopping someone from making a device that makes every possible sound in digital format, and then running through billions of iterations, and then copyrighting the output?

A million monkeys with a million typewriters....something about shakespeare...

i could be full of poo-poo though.

Re:stealing or a thesis? (0)

jareds (100340) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318428)

This is surely not a PhD thesis.

creator's universal newclear power net working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318307)

it's ALL about sharing/motives/intentions/behaviours. the daze of felonious greed/fear/ego based corepirate nazIE hoarding, is WANing into coolapps/the abyss.

those who have ignored/defied the caring/sharing mandate, best get ready to see the light.

consult with/trust in yOUR creator... that's the spirit.

no static at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318313)

no moretoll 'man' can win this daze? how lyrical?

TiVo to the iPod (2, Funny)

ebusta (719367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318308)

Awesome! Now all I need is that ellusive TiVo -> iPod software and cable bundle.

Hell's frozen over, folks. (5, Funny)

gertsenl (719370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318309)

From the article, for those who read all the way: "Mr. Winstein said he once received an e-mail message from a fellow student complimenting him on his choice of music (Antonin Dvorak's Symphony No. 8) and telling him "I'd like to get to know you better." She signed the note, "Sex depraved freshman."" This is a freshman girl at MIT... who is looking for loving... wants to get to know a gangly CS grad student... I AM STUPIFIED. Know what this means? This clinches it. The only reason we nerds are not getting any is because we're not looking for it. We're looking up net porn and wondering why we don't have girlfriends, while this girl's crying in her room about why we're not asking her out. Get out of your rooms and face the sun, gentlemen! Take a stand! Make this the day that college dorks around the world get girlfriends! WHO'S WITH ME?!

Re:Hell's frozen over, folks. (1)

rudabager (702995) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318337)

Im a computer geek and she [geocities.com] [link from my hompage rui.paytheprice.org] isnt.

deprived or depraved? (0)

The Tyro (247333) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318424)

Big difference between the two. You post would imply a lonely girl crying in her room... a "sexually DEPRIVED" girl.

Sexually "Depraved" implies something very different (though not necessarily bad...)

No need to register (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318361)

Here [nytimes.com] and here [hindustantimes.com] .

You /. mods should try news.google.com and save our souls from the NY Times registration database. The same goes for you submitters. It takes a couple of seconds and would save /. readers some time.

Re:No need to register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318517)

yeah that's a good idea, pity you spent your time looking for those and making that post when you could have just clicked the REG FREE link in the article.

So analog is allowed? (1)

aXlH (582574) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318362)

relies on the more relaxed copyright restrictions on analog transmission formats like cable.

Just watch your ethernet cabling with an oscilloscope while pumping mp3's over the net.
Looks like analog signals to me.

Hey! (1)

anonymous leprechaun (687351) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318379)

After loosing a good chunk of rights, privacy, my music collection ... common, anything But the tv!

Other side of Cambridge, MA (1, Funny)

Animaniac (719374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318382)

It would be nice if we could get this at the other end of Cambridge... Wait, Harvard doesn't even have the dorms wired for Cable TV yet! Damn you MIT, one day we'll show you! *shakes fist*

Re:Other side of Cambridge, MA (0, Offtopic)

paiute (550198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318508)

Fight fiercely, Harvard!
Fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill.
Albeit they possess the might,
Nonetheless we have the will.
How we shall celebrate our victory?
We shall invite IT
Up for tea! How jolly!
Pull that optical down the wall
And fight! Fight! Fight!

Why you people just dont get it. (5, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318401)

Whoever came up with this idea is clever. But, he/she similarly totally misunderstands the point of copyright laws by playing "bright lining" games (as do, in my experience, many slashdot readers).

(the term "bright lining" means doing some activity with a full knowledge of where the law or regulation is and doing something right up to this regulation, this living up to the letter of the law, though, the implication is, not the spirit.)

Copyright is a socially constructed concept. Basically, copyrightholders are entitled to a monopoly of sorts for a limited time on their work. most people agree that the primary reason for this is to encourage more creation of works.

When people talk in terms of "it's legally okay to copy a song from the radio" or "it's legally okay to copy three pages, but not the whole book", then they are basically referring to PRAGMATIC copyright interpreations and rulings based on past technological and social circumstance. as technology and social circumstance change, it may become necessary to change (usually tighten) what is allowed in order to best preserve the spirit and intention of copyright, which, again, is to encourage authors.

here's a really obvious sign of when the spirit of copyright is broken--i call it the "extrapolation" argument. basically, somebody takes an existing interpretation and tries to "scale it up":

  • sharing music with your kid sister is ok, so sharing music with everybody's kid sister is (Napster)
  • photocopying one page is ok, so let's set up a distributed system via amazon's new full-text thing by which everybody downloads one page and somehow they are combined again (slashdot/amazon)
  • MIT has a blanket license for analog music / copying music from existing analog sources of music is ok (radio - unscheduled recordings, includes ads, not complete songs), so let's play a clever trick by which people can get whatever they want in a high quality, but analog format (MIT)
All three of these will work, in the short term. And all three will generate stricter interpretations and a clamp-down, because they are so clearly against the spirit of the socially beneficial copyright law (oh, shut up already, completely-anti-copyright anarcho-libertarians - go and do a little historical research about every attempt to do away with copyrights and patents completely). The end result of this will be stricted interpretations and more bitching and whining on slashdot. What is the root cause of this? The evil RIAA and MPAA? Yes, they occasionally go overboard (the mickey mouse extension act is pretty egregious), but generally they are in the right.

The root cause is those who think that they're being clever by bright-lining copyright interpretations without realizing that they are interpretations that are subject to reasonable modification as circumstances warrant, not god-given cast-in-stone truths. or, in other words, more technological sense than social understanding.

Disagree? reply, not mod down.

Re:Why you people just dont get it. (2, Interesting)

back_pages (600753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318490)

Interesting points, but you do seem to advocate (or at least, predict) that all of these society-justified (is there a better word?) practices will be righted by legislation. Whether or not it is truly Right in the universal sense, or legal, or nice, our society does largely support the idea of file sharing.

Would you say it is then misguided for 50 Cent to put golden tickets for diamonds in 4 of his first million CD cases for his latest album? Johnny Cash's "American 4" included a DVD of a single video for the same price as a top name CD (and Cash certainly fits that bill.) These are plans to redefine the value of CD purchase to include something that fans cannot (easily) get by file sharing and seem to acknowledge that society tolerates this admitted widescale copyright infringement.

I'm not disagreeing, but curious how you would resolve these major label acts that are attempting to give fans a legitimate incentive to purchase the CD rather than download. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't a complete failure. "American 4" was the first CD I've bought in several years and specifically because I wanted the DVD with the video. If not for that, I would have likely downloaded the content regardless of a quasi-legal system like MIT's or stricter laws on outright file sharing.

The structure of the music biz can change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318574)

The music industry will change to meet the technological realities of today.

Just because business structures worked in the past does not make the structure inherently 'good' and does not imply any right for them to exist in the same form in the future.

Existing companies will innovate or be driven out of business by upstarts.

Imagine the producers of horse-drawn buggies complaining about the damage done to their business by this new automobile technology!

Here's what their PDF says about sound quality. (1)

ahfoo (223186) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318421)

"We have measured total signal-to-noise ratio, on a cheap television, at approximately 45 dB, or between 7 and 8 bits of resolution"

Hmm. I love 8 bit mods, but I doubt this system sounds too hot. It also sounded like it was mono at this point. If that was the case, I'd say the students at MIT would be better off just downloading stuff that is high quality and freely available without restrictions. There's plenty of it.
On the other hand, I check Kazaa the other day and I noticed that there's still about four million users. Maybe they rigged up the counter.

Almost there... (1)

RobinH (124750) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318437)

Soon they'll come up with a way to share music wirelessly. Some day, every living room and automobile will come with a "receiver" for this amazing new technology. Thousands of music broadcasters, calling themselves "stations" will broadcast music freely over the airwaves. "Free Music for All!"

Of course, if you want digital quality, that will still cost you $10 per month.

I'm still at a loss (2, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318440)

I'm still at a loss - how is lossy analog via FM radio or television still any different than lossy digital music, such as MP3s? Is it simply an issue of availability that makes MP3s so detestable by the MPAA?

Re:I'm still at a loss (1)

telstar (236404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318531)

"I'm still at a loss - how is lossy analog via FM radio or television still any different than lossy digital music, such as MP3s?"
  • DMCA ... the first letter stands for Digital. I'm sure the RIAA despises both, but they've got carte blanche legal power to prosecute the latter.

Different from FM (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318511)

The high-tech D.J. can select, rewind or fast-forward the songs via an Internet-based control panel.

This is precisely how it is different from an FM broadcast. This is the provision that the copyright lawyers will go after.

LAMP! (1)

hey (83763) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318553)

So Microsoft sponsored LAMP?!
But LAMP is Linux Apache Mysql {Perl, Python, Php}
eg http://www.onlamp.com/

NAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7318615)

Actually, it's

NetBSD, AOLServer, PostgreSQL (NAP)

They call that music sharing? (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318602)

I call it simply 16 college radio stations! I guess they wouldn't have made the NYT unless they came up with some imaginery barely-legal hook for their very "innovative" idea...

Of course it is legal, there is no law stopping radio/TV stations allowing anyone they choose to pick what to play and this is no different.

Joint project with law school? (1)

telbij (465356) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318673)

If they aren't collaborating with a law school to make this a more multi-dimensional project then this doesn't really strike me as a great idea.

An implication that this brings up... (1)

John Leeming (160817) | more than 10 years ago | (#7318675)

The FCC has mandated that all commercial and non-commercial stations are to be "digital" under a system known as "In Band On Channel (IBOC)" (which has undergone several name changes since first mandated).

Since all radio stations are now licensed for analog broadcast of MPAA materials under ASCAP/BMI/SESAC (the major artist licensing groups that make up MPAA, along with the recording industry itself), does this not mean that all stations will now have to apply for and pay to get license/permission to play materials in digital formats?

This could wipe out a lot of small stations, both commercial and non-commercial, and allow the megacorps like Clear Channel to control all such media, and essentially censor by exclusion any music that they deem to be "unfriendly".

---
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?