Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Government The Courts News

Legalities of a Company Sponsored MP3 Repository? 116

Posted by Cliff from the should-you-worry dept.
An anonymous reader asks: "At our company numerous people store MP3s on their local hard drives. Because we don't allow MP3's through email, and peer-to-peer file sharing programs, practically all of the MP3s are ripped from CD in the office. What is the liability for the company if it were to allow employees to place all ripped MP3s in a central location, that any employee could access? There would be practically no way to distribute the MP3s outside of the company, and it seems that this would be a legitimate practice that shouldn't open the company to liability (equivalent to providing the CD to a coworker). I'm wondering because I'd like to use this as a morale-booster at our company. I'm worried about the company being liable in some way as it would be company-supported. Does anyone have any feedback or experience with this?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legalities of a Company Sponsored MP3 Repository? More

Legalities of a Company Sponsored MP3 Repository?

Comments Filter:

  • After extensive research... (Score:5, Informative)

    by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:18PM (#5592466) Homepage Journal
    I think that this article [slashdot.org] answers your question pretty well. $1 million is a pretty hefty fee just to centralize your mp3s. See also this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org]. Also, I understand that there may or may be things on the Internet outside the domain ".slashdot.org" but I have yet to verify these claims.

    (note: you can find all these articles by typing "RIAA" into the search box at the bottom of this page)

  • The company is liable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rw2 ( 17419 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:18PM (#5592469) Homepage
    The question is whether there is a law being broken, not whether the company is liable. If the company provides this as a service and a law is being broken, it is liable.

  • Everything will be dreamy.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:18PM (#5592471) Homepage
    until somebody gets pissed after they get laid off or fired and proceed to report you to whatever that Corporate Crime hotline is. Sounds dumb, but I'm sure it could happen. By the way, it's a great idea.
  • Not a lawyer, but I doubt keeping even a company bought CD, copying it to a HD, and have it ready for multi-user playback can hardly be legal.

    If it were played in a form, simliar to a radio, that everyone listens at once or not, like a broadcast, that might be more legal.. but even then.

    'sides.. go ask a lawyer.

  • Sorry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) <MONET minus painter> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:20PM (#5592485) Journal
    A year or two ago a company got seriously slapped around for doing exactly this. I don't remember the details, but the company was severely damaged because of it.

    Kinda ridiculous, no?

    • Kinda ridiculous, no?

      Kinda ridiculous? No.

      Though most Slashdotters seem to either (1) be unhappy about this, or (b) be in denial of the fact, distributing copies of copyrighted music is against the law. A company that facilitates the distribution of copies of copyrighted music is just begging to get sued. And when they get sued, they're going to lose big.
      • My recolection was the company got hit with a lawsuit and settled with a six-figure out-of-court settlement ($100,000 I think). Google should provide this for sure.
      • Ok, when I read his question, I didn't read a single thing about *distributing* the music anywhere, just storing it on a server. It would be the exact same thing as everybody in the office bringing in their music and keeping it on a shelf full of cds for everyone to listen to when they want. I'd love to be the one being accused of piracy in the case - because I'd want to be the one to fight this in court and win. Just because it is on a server doesn't mean it's any more pirating than if you had the CD on
        • The difference is that more than one person could listen to the same album simultaneously. There would need to be a keyserver that only checked out one copy of the album for listening at a time.

          I remember similar software that Kinko's used to have on their self-serve DTP machines... they might only own 4 copies of Photoshop, but had crippled copies installed on all their machines. On launch, a temporary key was given, as long as there were not already the maximum number of copies running.

          • Re:Sorry (Score:3, Interesting)

            by hawkbug ( 94280 )
            I still have a problem with this theory - you're equating software with music. It *is* possible for more than one person to listen to a CD at a time. For example, I could sit in one cube and play a CD at loud enough volume for the person in the next cube to hear the music as well. Am I violating copy rights in this case? Certainly not. So even if 2 people were listening to the same mp3 at the same time, I don't see how that's different.
            • It's different because the company is providing a facility whereby copies of copyrighted songs can be distributed. All it takes is one instance of piracy, and the company is liable.

              It *is* possible for more than one person to listen to a CD at a time. For example, I could sit in one cube and play a CD at loud enough volume for the person in the next cube to hear the music as well.

              Then why don't they do that? If their motives are to facilitate anything other than just that model of use, they're on shaky

              • Re:Sorry (Score:3, Interesting)

                by dh003i ( 203189 )
                Then why don't they do that?

                Because in the modern era, we have technology that can allow customization. Not everyone likes the same music. If the purpose is to increase moral, you're not going to do that by playing classical music over the PA when many in the company hate classical (unwashed swinely masses).

                As I understand this scheme, it would not allow for the distribution of copyrighted music. It is completely internalized within the company. Furthermore, I believe this guy is thinking of setting up

                • Because in the modern era, we have technology that can allow customization.

                  It was a rhetorical question. ;-)

                  As I understand this scheme, it would not allow for the distribution of copyrighted music. It is completely internalized within the company.

                  It absolutely would allow for the distribution of copyrighted music. If I have read-access to the file server, I can copy the files off of the server. That's distribution.

                  Furthermore, I believe this guy is thinking of setting up a streaming system, which i
                  • It absolutely would allow for the distribution of copyrighted music. If I have read-access to the file server, I can copy the files off of the server. That's distribution.

                    Copyright only covers public distribution of copyrighted materials, not private. If I have a family of 5 people, and set up a server in my house to serve each of their computers music upon request, that is covered under fair use. Likewise with this corporation.

                    I can't think of anything wrong with streaming.

                    Then what's your point

                    • Copyright only covers public distribution of copyrighted materials, not private. If I have a family of 5 people, and set up a server in my house to serve each of their computers music upon request, that is covered under fair use. Likewise with this corporation.

                      No, I don't think so. The law prohibits any distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works; there's no distinction in the statutes between public distribution and limited distribution. That means distribution is technically prohibited wit

                    • So, according to your twisted logic, the company is also liable if they play music on a PA, and one individual records that music then distributes it online? That's complete and utter BS. The same kind of fuzzy logic which the RIAA bribed judges into accepting, to make Napster liable for the actions of its users.

                      Not quite twisted logic. Playing music on a PA is considered a public performance, and companies who do that pay a good amount for licensing, it's just like running a radio station. Have a loo


                    • Even if not, how is streaming any different in practical effect than just putting a read-only (no copy/move/etc) copy on the music on ppl's HD.

                      Think about what you just said. How do you propose to give people read permissions to a file and keep them from copying it?

                      Yeah, that's what makes streaming different.


                      The company wouldn't be breaking the law. Their actions fall under fair use.
                      Interesting legal reasoning you have there. Be sure to let me know when you get hauled into court. I definitely
                    • That's such bullshit. It's not any more a public performance than playing music on a PA at a party or gathering. It's no different than playing the radio over a PA. Has the RIAA brainwashed everyone? If it were up to those musinazis, borrowing CDs, loaning CDs for money, and first-sale would be criminal.
                    • discussion on the subject of copyright law will continue until one participant or the other says that "owning information is bullshit.

                      Obviously, you haven't read web-sites relating to Godwin's law. It doesn't work that way.

                      In any event, owning information is bullshit. Authors of books should have the limited priviledge to profit off of their work. In other words, copyrights, patents, trademarks, tradesecrets, etc need to be scratched and rebuilt, with much shorter durations (e.g., 20 years) and much s

                    • Blah blah blah, why don't you just admit you're a theiving criminal who doesn't want to pay for anything instead of coming up with lame excuses to justify your way of thinking?

                    • That's such bullshit. It's not any more a public performance than playing music on a PA at a party or gathering.

                      Unfortunately, if you charge for the party or gathering and mention the music on the ad, you may very well be straying into the legal area of "public performance." But IANAL.

                    • yea, but employees don't pay to work at a corporation; they're paid to work there. So diff story.
                    • (1) Copyright infringement is not a crime, and it certainly isn't stealing (to steal, you have to deprive the original owner of his/her property). Get your fucking facts straight. (2) I don't have to justify or rationalize what I'm doing -- I don't feel any guilt, nor should I, as the industry isn't losing any money; (3) There are serious practical and ethical problems with the current IP-scheme, and if you think there arne't, you're an idiot; (4) There are serious ethical problems with the idea that infor
                    • Yes, so playing the music over a loudspeaker at the office is not a public performance. But that still doesn't make the idea of a shared MP3 repository kosher.
                    • how not, it's the same thing? the same as playing several diff things over a PA, xcept it allows users to choose what they want.
                    • Nope. Difference is this: a PA is serial. An MP3 archive can be parallel. You can have three people playing one MP3 at slightly offset times, while 3 more play three others. With a PA, the same song is played at the same time for all listeners. Thus for the sake of licensing, the PA is one license, the MP3 is at least 6 song/licenses.

            • Re:Sorry (Score:3, Informative)

              by Copperhead ( 187748 )
              Actually, you may still get the RIAA slapping you for playing your music for more than one person. They could expect you to pay fees as it is a "performance of copyrighted works.

              Here [house.gov] is the testimony of the head of the National Restaurant Association before the House Judiciary Committee complaining about the practice.

            • Re:Sorry (Score:3, Funny)

              by ip_vjl ( 410654 )
              I don't see how that's different.

              It's not how YOU see the situation that matters. It is how the COURTS would see the situation. For that, you need to look at precedent and consult an attorney.

              You: Your honor, l33tD00d_74 on slashdot said it would be ok to do it.

              Judge: Oh, in that case ... case dismissed.

            • But you're not talking about the music, you're talking about the software - the mp3 encoded representation of the music. Only one person would be "licensed" to decode an mp3 at a time; if he wanted his speakers blaring across the building, fine.

      • fuck off (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Ender Ryan ( 79406 )
        Nowhere anywhere did anything relating to the current discussion say anything about distribution of music.

        Go eat shit, Twirlip.

        • Nowhere anywhere did anything relating to the current discussion say anything about distribution of music.
          What is the liability for the company if it were to allow employees to place all ripped MP3s in a central location,
          that any employee could access?
          Go eat shit, Twirlip.

          Do you kiss your momma with that mouth?
      • OK, well how about streaming from a music repository???

        Its not illegal to play music across company speakers, and isnt that the same??

        • Re:Sorry (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 )
          OK, well how about streaming from a music repository???

          As far as I know, streaming would be fine. I can't think of any legal problems that would arise from streaming, as long as great care is taken to make sure that the streams are not accessible from outside the company.
          • How is streaming significantly different than just letting the employees access the music directly? You could still copy the stream, and then you're back at the same place.
            • How is streaming significantly different than just letting the employees access the music directly? You could still copy the stream, and then you're back at the same place.

              You could set up a microphone and a tape recorder, too, but playing music in a public place is still okay. Broadcasting-- in the limited sense-- music for others to listen to is completely okay, despite the fact that it's technically possible to record that broadcast in ways that might or might not be okay. But handing out copies of you
          • Nope, sorry. With all the current laws on streaming, expect to pay out the ass to be an internet radio station to do it legally.

            If you don't, there's always the public performance laws.

            The files would be fine to share, IMH non-laywer O, if one was to set up the server to lock the files so that only one user can read each one at a time.

            Fortunately, I'm in Canada, and, as far as I can tell, it is completely legal for me to do this (set up an MP3 repository at my company with music ripped from CDs I keep t
            • Nope, sorry. With all the current laws on streaming, expect to pay out the ass to be an internet radio station to do it legally.

              Yes, you're right. I did a little reading to satisfy my own curiosity, and streaming a music broadcast over your company LAN would probably not be okay, either.

              That's okay. None of these things is worth doing, anyway; you're there to work, not to listen to music.
              • >None of these things is worth doing, anyway; you're there to work, not to listen to music.

                Listening to music [powerpill.org] increases productivity. ;-)

                I think when I open my store I'm going to pipe chamber music into the computer repair area. Last thing I want to do is to get the workers excited about their jobs...
                • "I think when I open my store I'm going to pipe chamber music into the computer repair area."

                  Depends on your worker's tastes how they'll react, but if they're repairing computers they should be using their sense of hearing and all their other senses (except perhaps taste) to do the work. You wouldn't have them examining circuit boards with almost no light in the room, they need to be listening unimpeded as well.

  • My thought is: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Unknown Poltroon ( 31628 ) <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:26PM (#5592527)
    1: All cds stored on the server must be phsically surrenederd and stored at the company so that only one copy can be used at once.
    2:Only one person can be playing any song file at once.
    This satisfies all the fair use clauses, i believe, and you will STILL have you asses sued off.
  • It's a safe bet that if you do this, you don't tell anybody outside.

    It's even safer, as other people have mentioned, to not do this period.

    Speaking as somebody who kept his own private library of MP3's at a previous employer, it's safe enough to keep it on your own machine unless somebody goes probing around or you share your machine or start talking....

    • >it's safe enough to keep it on your own machine unless somebody goes probing around or you share your machine or start talking....

      Or until someone figures out that pesky uber haxor command

      C:\>net use x: \\yourcomputername\c$

      • Or until someone figures out that pesky uber haxor command

        C:\>net use x: \\yourcomputername\c$

        And they guess your password.
        • Actually if they are part of the group that the Active Domain recognizes as authority (Administrators, perhaps) then your machine with trust that authority and grant them full reign.

          C$ is called an administrative share, and is there for exactly that reason.
  • It's not even legal to offer an mp3 for download to a user who has bought the original CD. Common sense and copyright law don't necessarily go hand in hand.
  • It's possible to do this legally, but probably not worth the effort.

    The model you would probably need is to have the company hold onto the physical CD while the MP3 version is in the database. Combine that with an interface that only allows one employee to access music from a given CD at a time, and you should be legal.

    Of course, this is all a grey area, and what's legal and what won't get you sued are probably two entirely different things. I would suggest doing everything you can to avoid giving the a
  • What is the liability for the company if it were to allow employees to place all ripped MP3s in a central location, that any employee could access?
    That is the motivation for doing that? Why should the company want to help Fred to access Ralph's personal files?
  • I've always turned my desktop machine into an mp3 server at work. I usually just bring in a couple of hella-large hard drives, slap them in my machine, and publicly share /mp3 to whomever wants it.

    I figure that if I keep it on the down-low, the company can avoid responsibility. A lot of people got upset when I started working exclusively from home and they lost Mando's Media drive :-).

    --
    Mando

    • Re:What I do (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bofkentucky ( 555107 )
      Troll or you work in the coolest place on the planet, they let you put random hardware in your machine?
      • I actually work in the coolest place on the planet :-). The IT guys let us do what we want with our machines, with the caveat that they won't support anything non-standard.

        It's not exactly company policy, but most of us that would want to soup up our work machines are allowed to. Heck, they even let us run linux on our desktop machines.

        --
        Mando
  • For every cd in your archive, you will need to have the physical cd archived and restricted while it is being accessed via the network. The cd may only be accessed by one person at any moment.

    Is it legal? Depends on whom you ask. The RIAA will say no, but any intelligent lawyer/judge would say yes.
    • Not to mention nobody must be allowed to make copies of the content... This is probably turning into a bigger DRM-issue than any company would invest in keeping it's workers happy..

      But of course.... IN SOVIET RUSSIA... ;-)

  • IANAL, but I'd be surprised if this were legal.

    OTOH, your company might have an "open sharing" policy and a large writable NFS/SAMBA drive for people to dump files they wish to share rather than attach to email. Policy would be copyright had to be respected, but that could only be determined by the uploader. Management supervision whence liability could be avoided by running a size-adjusted LRU delete program to police the free-space. Untouched by human eyes.

  • Start a CD library, with physical CDs. Let employees sign out the CDs and play them at their desk.

    Easy, low-tech, and legal.

    • That's obviously the best--and only unquestionably lawful--idea, but the company's equally obviously a cheap-ass, scrimping, barely functioning, "waves of layoffs" sort of outfit. Functional businesses don't need this kind of "morale-booster," or mp3s ripped from their employees' discs to, uh, fund it--or free bad advice from us misinformed jerks.

      They could also just call up the g.d. RIAA and/or ASCAP and/or BMI and/or a lawyer and ask them what the proper licensing is for this kind of quasi-broadcasting s

  • Just do streaming from a central server. It's really no different than playing several songs at once on a speaker-system, except you get to direct the sound so that chaos doesn't drive everyone nuts.

    Also, consider how this will effect productiviy. Is someone listening to "Smack my bitch up" (Prodigy) really going to be productive in the office?

    But there are no liability issues with your plan. You're planning on basically allowing people to listen to the music of their choice in a working-environment (
    • Is someone listening to "Smack my bitch up" (Prodigy) really going to be productive in the office?
      No, but "Smack my Switch up" (sysadmins) might be :-)
    • If you play music for your employees, that I believe counts as a public performance--therefor requiring you to buy an ASCAP license. (Or equivelant)
    • Is someone listening to "Smack my bitch up" (Prodigy) really going to be productive in the office?

      Yes. Weirdly, I happened to be listening to exactly that when I read your comment. Except for a short break to read /., I've been writing code for three hours, since 4AM. I should be done and on my way home by 2PM, around the time all the other people in the office are just starting to wake up again after lunch...

    • Is someone listening to "Smack my bitch up" (Prodigy) really going to be productive in the office?

      Probably. I used to have a few Prodigy tunes in my at-work playlist, Beastie Boys, Mega-deth, Iron Maiden.. Though I found out over the course of time I did more work with less distraction listening to the portion of the playlist consisting of Van Halen, Simon and Garfunkel, and the Beatles.. I eventually ended up listening to that portion of the playlist exclusivly. It had the added bonus I could play it on
  • how about allowing ONE person to check out a cd (mp3) at a time. that way its more of a 1:1 model (which IS 100% legal, AFAIK) rather than a 1:many model (which the riaa complains about).

    if nothing else, it limits your liability and shows good faith in trying to be more in line with the 'I loaned a friend my only copy' idea.

  • Excerpts from the U.S. Code [cornell.edu]:

    • Section 106(6) [cornell.edu]: the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...] in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
    • Section 114(d1 Cii) [cornell.edu]: The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service, is not an infringement of section 106(6) if the performance is part of [.
  • just create a webcast station, and pay the ASCAP fees. much cheaper than the $1million discussed earlier, and all they have to do is tune in. they could also listen to the radio.

    all these streams on shoutcast.com pay ascap fees and when they do that they are able to broadcast ANY song covered under the license. i believe that you get a fat-ass shipment of cd's when you do this, too.

    talk to ascap, they'll hook you up. no its not free, but its a hell of a lot more legal than what you're about to do.
    • www.ascap.com.

      for a station with no revenue to broadcast any song covered under the license to any number of people up to 100, the fee per year is $264. less than you though huh. for that price i bet you don't get a fat-ass shipment of cd's but at least you're covered legally for an in-office webcast stream.
  • I have no idea if there is software out there to do it (probably, I haven't Googled for it though), but find some software that permits a file to be used by one person at a time. This would typically be done by using a config file in the directory, setting a permission bit on the mp3, etc.

    I imagine that once you look into the law (I can't possibly stress enough that IANAL) you'll find it's a matter of preventing multiple people from using the same copy of something at the same time. This would possibly l

  • Some legal issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zhar ( 533174 ) <mike AT goldtwo DOT net> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @04:03PM (#5593508) Homepage Journal
    First off, I work for a fine arts academy, where we recently converted all of the old records, tapes and cd's we had in our music library (750,000+ albums) into mp3's encoded at 320kbps. Some of the legal issues we ran into were had to do with students copying the mp3's onto their local machines, in essence making illegal duplicates. Because the library only paid for one copy, and must pay a nominal set fee for every copy they make of the music, we either had to come up with a way to keep track of how many copies were out going and bill the respective student's expense account accordingly, or make it so that we only kept one copy and all the students had to share it.

    We went with the one copy system using a web interface and streaming the music because it gave us the best accountability, and we were able to keep track of all the music's statistics using a SQL database. Because our music contract states that we cannot remove the actual music from the library, we located the 2 servers underneath the circulation desk, solving that little problem. Because of our VLANing and general setup, only non-wireless trusted clients can connect. This means that the students can log in from their dorms and listen to their music, with out having to trek a 3/4 mile across campus in the snow.

    • Re:Some legal issues (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      No you didn't.

      Assuming 30 minutes an album, which probably isn't going to be long, that's 22.5 Million minutes of music. At 320kbps, thats 19.2 Mb per minute, which is roughly 2.4 MB per minute. That's 54 Million megabytes of compessed music. Which is, depending on your math, between 52 and 54 terabytes, right?

      I'll allow that you may have recently finished converting your collection, but I imagine it must have taken a while, and was not all done recently.
      • > 19.2 Mb per minute, which is roughly 2.4 MB per minute Er, what were you trying to say here? No offense intended, we all make mistakes. :)
        • Hey, no offense.

          An explanation:
          Mb - megabit
          MB - megabyte

          Audio data rates are usually quoted in bits, and mass storage in bytes, so you usually need to divide by 8, amongst other things, when calculating the storage space for some audio...
    • 750,000 albums?

      I'm interested in the details of how you've accomplished this conversion. It must've been quite an undertaking.

      I mean, let's assume that everything is undamaged and thus easily ripped/recorded. Let us also assume (probably generously) that 75% of your collection is on CD, and further that an average album is 45 minutes.

      According to my math, that comes to a bit over 16 years of playback time, just for that 25% of the collection which has no CD counterpart, which seems a bit overwhelming.
      • I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. We have only just started to convert the music, with about 13,000 albums finished. We have a rather large SAN set up to handle all of the music. It doesn't take too long to rip the music off of cd/record/tape, because we have access to equipment donated from NPR.
    • When you say converted I hope you meant made mp3 format copies and carefully stored the irreplacable originals.

  • Solution. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3-State Bit ( 225583 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @06:26PM (#5594759)
    Easy.
    1. You have a pile of CDs.

    2. Anyone who wants to listen to CDs on work time must donate a CD to the pile.

    3. The pile sits in front of a Personal Stereo Bank. This is a bank of personal CD players. It has 25 different headphone jacks each connected to one of 25 different CD drives. Basically, it's as though 25 portable CD players were glued together. (There is no cross-functionality between the 25 CD players.)

    4. The Personal Stereo Bank is in your case an Ethernet Stereo Bank, which is just a fancy digital version of the Personal Stereo Bank. This version
      1. Allows people to listen to their CDs on Ethernet Headphones (next item),
      2. has only one CD player instead of 25, and digitizes CDs in advance, so that you don't actually have to put in the physical CD to play it.
      Note: The CD must still physically be in the stockpile in front of the Ethernet Stereo Bank, or you are stealing music you do not have a license to play. Fair Use implicitly gives you a license to play your own prepared copy of a music on any medium, as long as you own the original physical medium. It does NOT give you the right to distribute copies. Therefore, there is no distribution of copies -- there is only the stockpile of CDs, and an Ethernet Stereo Bank allowing one single person at a time to listen to a given CD. While that personal is listening to that CD (has borrowed it from the stockpile), no one else may use it.

      Note also: The Ethernet Stereo Bank is NOT a jukebox -- you are not using it as part of a public performance. Rather, it is a bunch of CD players all collected in a single piece of hardware. Each CD player only has one headphone jack, to which only a single person may listen at a time.

    5. The Ethernet Stereo Bank doesn't just have 25 eighth-inch stereo output jacks all in a row -- rather, it has 25 Ethernet Headphone Jacks to each of which a single Ethernet Headphone may be connected at a time.

    6. Each employee's computer acts as a pair of Ethernet Headphones, by connecting to an Ethernet Headphone Jack on the Ethernet Stereo Bank. Each employee may then play a single CD on her Ethernet Headphone at a time, and only when that CD is in the stockpile and available for borrowing (i.e. not being played by someone else).

      An employee may not play her CD loudly enough for other people to hear -- she only has the right to use the CD for private listening.

    7. Each employee may have a Remote CD Changer installed on her computer, which allows her to select an available CD to listen to from the stockpile without physically having to walk over to the Ethernet Stereo Bank. It also has the advanced feature of being able to queue CDs until they are available.


    Thus, we have a system whereby each employee can add a couple of CDs to a communal pile and listen to CDs from the pile one at a time. We have an electronic solution for this that saves the employee the trouble of having to get up, walk over the stockpile, take the CD back to her computer, and return it when she is done. We are breaking no law that a CD pool itself does not break.

    Questions? Comments?

    Hell, I'll even contract the solution for you if you want. (Code the Ethernet Stereo Bank, as well as graphical, cross-platform Ethernet Headphone and Remote CD changer client software.)

    Just e-mail r v i r a g h @ y a h o o . c o m if you're interested -- but you should be able to do all of the above yourself, it's very, very simple. The trickiest part is adhering precisely to the conceptual framework outlined above, especially when it comes to the language presented in the user interfaces. Otherwise, you're legally liable.

    Note: I am not a lawyer.
    • Change CD to track - that way the users select tracks, rather than whole CDs - the tracks would be "checked out" from the library (in addition, the client software would have to be smart enough to reorder the list of playback songs as they are checked out, so that is person A is listening to a song person B has in their list, and the song comes up to play for B while A has it playing, the list continues on with the next free song, coming back to the previously checked out song after each play until it can b

  • No (Score:2)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 )
    Not only is a central repository illegal, the MP3s on the company hard drives can also get your arse sued. My advice to you, get all MP3s of commerical music off company equipment. If staff want to listen to music they can bring in their CDs, the radio or their own MP3 player. Personally I have an iPod and a little pair of Sony speakers.
  • You can argue that keeping the MP3 files is just format shifting and doesn't represent a copyright violation; I would agree with you, although a court probably wouldn't.

    But this would likely be considered "public performance" or "commercial use", which usually requires the payment of royalties to the copyright holders, no matter how you store the CDs. You could put them into a CD changer and pipe the audio through an analog speaker system and you'd still run into the same problem.

  • Why are you asking us? Ask your legal department. See how long it takes for your company lawyer to laugh you out of her office.

    Or are you trying to find ammo to help get the idea past your company lawyer? "Hey, look, these 12 people on Slashdot said that they thought it was legal, can we do it, too?"

  • Boost Morale? That's laughable. Just do what every other company does: buy a longer whip!

  • A company that we contract work out to, called IIS(dumb name)...got spanked for $1 Million because of their MP3 server.
    Moral of the story: Don't do it!
    • From: http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=2593

      Recording industry collects $1 million fine

      LOS ANGELES (Top40 Charts) - Big Brother is listening!

      That's the message the recording industry hoped to send Tuesday by announcing it had collected $1 million from a company that let employees swap songs on an internal server.

      Arizona-based Integrated Information Systems Inc., which ran a dedicated server permitting employees to access and distribute thousands of music files over the company network, agreed to

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close