Brier Dudley | Amazon's unlocked music still might get you sued

By Brier Dudley
Seattle Times technology columnist

When Amazon.com launched its MP3 store last week, I thought the Seattle company had found the perfect formula for selling digital music.

Prices are lower than Apple's iTunes, audio quality is generally higher and none of the songs is embedded with obnoxious copy-protection software. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon leapfrogs into first place in the downloadable-music business that Microsoft, Sony and others have struggled with for years.

Does that mean it's time to say goodbye to the neighborhood record store?

I'd say no, after reading the fine print in Amazon's user agreement. That's when I decided to keep buying CDs, maybe forever.

People should pay attention to the legalese, because it looks like the recording industry has found a new way to go after anyone who doesn't follow its rules.

Amazon's MP3 songs lack digital locks, the software that provides digital-rights management, or DRM. But you're still limited in how you can use the music. The difference is that instead of using software for protection, the restrictions are in the user agreement, a contract you automatically agree to when you buy the songs.

More troubling, the terms of the contract could also erode the principle known as "fair use," which gives consumers the right to make personal copies of media they purchase, sell used copies and even loan the media to friends and family. You can do all that legally, unless you enter a contract forbidding such malicious behavior.

Amazon's contract says you "may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content" for personal use. But then it goes further and specifies restrictions, saying you "agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, sub-license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content."

Concerned that I was being paranoid, I floated this past Fred von Lehmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, a public-interest advocacy group.

He was surprised by the language and said it appears to enable record companies to pursue a breach of contract if, for instance, you loaned your mother an iPod containing MP3s bought from Amazon.

"It's sort of like they're adding another layer of restrictions potentially above and beyond what copyright law would restrict," von Lehmann said.

Software companies have protected content with contract language forever, but with Amazon's MP3 store "it's new in the sense that it's now coming home to roost for everyday Americans," he said.

Record companies may never bother to enforce the Amazon contract, but it's important to know the territory the industry is staking out as it moves toward DRM-free music (especially after seeing what happened to Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman fined $222,000 last Thursday for distributing 24 songs online).

Apple, which began selling some DRM-free music in April, is less specific. Its "terms of service" agreement says buyers are agreeing to abide by copyright protections but "you may copy, store and burn" DRM-free songs "as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use."

These contracts are carefully negotiated with record companies. As the big gorilla in digital music, Apple probably has more sway, and its chief executive has crusaded against DRM.

Amazon is just breaking into the business. It's still building relationships with record labels while trying to persuade them to release high-quality MP3s without DRM.

When I asked Pete Baltaxe, Amazon's director of digital music, about the fair-use implications of the contract, he said Amazon's responding to labels' concerns about piracy.

"We understand that concern," he said. "We believe that the best defense against piracy is a good offense. By a good offense, I mean sell people a great product, a product that is interoperable, that is high quality, that has great album art at a great value. That's the best way to compete."

He's right, and I wish Amazon luck as it pulls the music industry toward a more reasonable future.

Most consumers won't give a second thought to the user terms as long as the music is good, cheap and easy to get.

Enjoy. Just remember that DRM-free doesn't mean unrestricted.

iv never read it but this doesnt surprise me at all.

I notice Amazon's agreement bans broadcast. It's the same stupid shit, over and over and over.

it appears to enable record companies to pursue a breach of contract if, for instance, you loaned your mother an iPod containing MP3s bought from Amazon.

If you're on the West Coast, the sun "appears" to disappear into the ocean every night. It ain't necessarily so.

Folks,

I am sorry to say this but...


SERIOUS AS A HEART-ATTACK

If you share RIAA tunes (even if from Amazon or any other SUPPOSEDLY DRM free source - you are STILL smoking the RIAA's crack pipe.)

DON'T BE FOOLED!

(DRM or not. It's STILL the same GARBAGE!)

Independent Music ONLY should be your mantra.

(If you persist being one of the sheep, you WILL get sheered... OR

...you will become a meal for the wolf.)

Someone PLEASE smack the dumb-ass sheep HARDER!

Somebody DO something!!!

Indie Only

Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only
Indie Only

Get it thru your thick skulls!

More troubling, the terms of the contract could also erode the principle known as "fair use," which gives consumers the right to make personal copies of media they purchase, sell used copies and even loan the media to friends and family. You can do all that legally, unless you enter a contract forbidding such malicious behavior.

Now fair use is gone .
PLEASE LISTEN PEOPLE TO THE GREAT SCHMOO^ DON'T BUY OR OTHERWISE POSSESS RIAA GARBAGE
they can only be stoped if we stop them.

so like if I like have some friends over, and Im like jammin my stereo so loud the neighbors can hear it (okay I rattle the knicknacks offn their walls) it's not just a ticket for loud music but now it's copyright infringement cuz other people can HEAR the music?!?
do my friends have to sign Amazon's contract to listen to the music or is it in their contract that I can only wear headphones?


frist the RIAA screwed musicians by having em sign a contract, NOW the RIAA is screwing fans by having them sign a contract.

hmmm, I was even thinking about trying out their tunes, even though I think MP3s at any bitrate are a poor substitute for CD-quality. Now, I say to heck with 'em. Only in the worst case of desperation would I buy an MP3 from amazon. I will get a used CD or do without.

I thought DRM was over!

Buying used is a good way to go if you really feel you must have something. Bittorrents are great for that too and free, although good search engines seem to be drying up.

Mike, for someone who thinks all RIAA music is "garbage" you have a lot of cover songs on your page.

Hmm.

(I guess we're sort of waiting for Mike to defend himself on this issue. But we don't know if he has seen FraDonaghy's post.)

Sorry, I have been camping this week (where, incidentally I was working on some new songs.) lol

Yeah, Electric Gypsy does a lot of covers, but we have about 2 album's worth of all original material too.

Thank goodness DMusic takes care of the digital delivery rights on those cover tunes. Otherwise, they would not be available for you to enjoy over the Internet. (Too expensive to obtain the rights ourselves!)

Oh, and never forget:

A cover version of a tune is an altogether different thing than the RIAA's sound-recording.

at ya Fra!