Topic: Music
Okay, admittedly, I haven't exactly been keeping up with the lawsuit against 'Project Playlist'. Although I do care about the situation, it doesn't rule my life. I have too much to get done most of the time to let any one topic be my sole focus. I do have other layers, after all!
Anyway, as I was looking through Google News for topics that have been a past interest to me, I decided to enter "riaa, project playlist" in the little search box and found out that there had been some new developments in the suit.
Apparently back in mid March (yeah, I know. I'm not exactly on the down low with breaking news), it was reported that EMI Music, much like Sony BMG last year, dropped out of the lawsuit against 'Project Playlist'.
On March 25th, Chloe Albanesius wrote and article about the news in PC Magazine's official website "PCMag". Below is the original article unedited (Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343832,00.asp):
EMI Allows Content on Project Playlist, Drops Suit
By Chloe Albanesius
EMI Music has reached a deal to distribute its content on Project Playlist, and has dropped out of a lawsuit against the music Web site.
Project Playlist, which allows its users to compile playlists from music on the site, will now offer access EMI's catalogue, the companies announced Wednesday.
On Tuesday (March 24th), EMI withdrew from a lawsuit against the Web site that was filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in April 2008. Nine record labels, including Warner Bros. and Atlantic Records, remain a part of the suit.
"Making our music available on a fan favorite like Project Playlist is part of EMI Music's mission to connect artists and fans and to give fans more ways to discover new artists," Ronn Werre, president of EMI Music's Music Services worldwide, said in a statement.
Project Playlist is growing in popularity, Werre said, and "our artists also know that word-of-mouth among friends is a powerful part of music discovery."
"It is crucial for us to continue connecting our users with more of their favorite music," Owen Van Natta, Playlist CEO. "This partnership will provide us with a wide-ranging selection of content to satisfy our users' appetites to share and purchase music."
In December, Sony BMG agreed to make its entire catalogue available on the site. At the same time, however, social networks like MySpace and Facebook blocked access to Project Playlist. Members had previously been able to embed playlists into their profiles.
The RIAA reportedly contacted Facebook last summer about removing the Playlist application, and made the request again in December.
The RIAA lawsuit said that Project Playlist's business model "amounts to nothing more than an enormous infringement of [RIAA members'] copyrighted sound recording for [Project Playlist's] gain."
Playlist is "well aware" that its activity infringes on copyrights, but still "aggressively touts its service as a legitimate enterprise," the suit said.
(End of article)
Don't worry, I'm not going to step onto my soapbox. I've made it clear in previous posts on my blog that I disagree with the lawsuit. There's no sense in beating a dead horse.
However, I would like to briefly address the legal issues at the core of this lawsuit.
The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA), maintains that Project Playlist is in violation of copyright laws, which although it may sound "cut and dry", in the world of cyberspace it is anything but.
Copyright provides protection to authors/artists for all forms of "intellectual property" by United States law (title 17, U.S. Code). This includes, but is not limited to, novels, artwork, photographs, music, video and movies (to name only a few).
Project Playlist maintains that it has legal immunity from Copyright infringement under section V or the "Communications Decency Act" (CDA).
"What is the CDA?", you might be wondering
The CDA was originally a law passed by Congress in an attempt to regulate pornographic material on the internet. Due to a lawsuit in the Supreme Court (ACLU vs. Reno), the law was partially overturned. What essentially remains of the law is as follows:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The defense of Project Playlist is basically this; Since the music files that they provide come from content hosted on external providers and they do not personally host any music files on their servers, they cannot be held liable for copyright infractions said external provider may or may not have made.
In layman's terms, "www.JohnDoe.com" uploads "Queen - Don't Stop Me Now.mp3", and posts (publishes) it on their website without obtaining Queen's written permission or paying royalties. Said mp3, which is hosted and published on "www.JohnDoe.com", then appears on the Project Playlist search engine (Since Project Playlist is a "fileshare" service and does not personally host or publish music files on their website) and is made available for users to add to their personal music player lists via the "www.JohnDoe.com" website. Since "www.JohnDoe.com" is the publisher and host of said mp3 they are in violation of Copyright law, not Project Playlist (according to CDA guidelines).
It would be like Google being sued because a writer found a link through their search engine to a complete unauthorized version of his book.
Anyway, I clearly side with Project Playlist on this issue. This is why I refuse to have the "MySpace Music" widget on my website. Many of the record labels that provide their music with the option of purchase on MySpace Music are the ones involved in this lawsuit so, as protest, I have chosen for my profile to remain silent.
Okay, so enough of that. I give you Monty Trek:
Brightest blessings.