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!

Capitol Records Flooded Internet With MP3s, Says MP3Tunes CEO

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-much-carrot-how-much-stick dept.

The Courts 168

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In court papers filed in New York in Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the CEO of MP3Tunes, Michael Robertson, has accused the plaintiffs EMI, Capitol Records, and other EMI record labels of flooding the internet with free MP3s of their songs for promotional purposes, 'free to everyone (except, apparently, MP3tunes).' His 10-page declaration (PDF) provides exact details of specific song files, including the URLs from which they are being distributed free of charge, both by paid content distributors, and by EMI itself from its own web sites."

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

What am I missing here??? (4, Insightful)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26285847)

Aren't the songs EMI / Capitol's to do with as they wish?

Including give them away, by whatever methods they choose?

Obviously, I'm missing a legal facet here; what is it?

Re:What am I missing here??? (4, Informative)

Phoenix Rising (28955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26285877)

Nope, you've got it right.

If Capitol Records holds the Copyright, then they can do whatever they want and still control the distribution channel.

First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26285965)

Sounds right to me. You can't just distribute a copyrighted work willy-nilly if you are not the copyright holder (or a licensee).

On the other hand, there is also the right of first sale [wikipedia.org] , which says that if you purchase a copyrighted work, say a CD full of music, you have the right to sell that CD to someone else as long as no copies are made. I'm not an expert on this limitation on copyright, so I'm not sure how it works with digital non-software files. If I legally download a free MP3 file from a valid distributor without any kind of licensing agreement, is there a legal restriction that stops me from sending that file to someone else, provided that my file is also deleted?

Maybe "free" isn't considered a sale...

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286059)

Maybe "free" isn't considered a sale...

Thinking further, this would suggest that you couldn't sell or give away a promotional CD given to you by a music label, which I'm sure you could. So I don't know if "free" is really material here...

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (2, Insightful)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286119)

Maybe there are exceptions, but not usually. When I would do music reviews the CDs we received were VERY clearly labeled, "For Promotional Purposes Only. Not For Sale."

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (2, Funny)

ckthorp (1255134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286149)

The label could also say that you have cooties. Would you believe that too?

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

riff420 (810435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286215)

I might be inclined to believe it provided that it wasn't the label that convinced you that you are funny.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286655)

It may be that he in fact does have cooties.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286231)

Didn't you read this? [techdirt.com]

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286719)

Were they received unsolicited through the mail? If so you were free to do with them what you wanted no matter what the label said.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (4, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287835)

and yet every label knows that 99% of the promo CDs they send out will just end up in the used bin at local record shops.

we try our best to mark promo CDs as such. record companies used to punch holes in the album covers of their LPs meant for promotion use or print "white label" records to distinguish them from the retail product. these days we just use sharpies to write "PROMO" on the covers, but it really is a futile effort. if you go to any mid-sized record store with a used/second-hand section, you'll still find tons of promo materials being sold.

occasionally we'll come upon our own promo CDs being sold at a record store, and in those situations we'll ask the owner to take them off the shelves or just buy them back. but as far as i know, it's not actually illegal to sell promo CDs.

and regarding the relevance of Capitol Records distributing free mp3s to this case, i think it has to do with the plaintiff's claim that MP3Tunes has "severely and irreparably [injured] Plaintiffs and other copyright holders by eroding legitimate sales of music through both traditional and online channels." i think those claims are dubious at best to begin with. but if Capitol Records is already distributing their own music all over the web where anyone is free to download it, then they can't really claim that MP3Tunes is eroding their sales simply by allowing their users to access their own uploaded music from any computer with an internet connection.

i mean, they might as well sue wireless router or S/PDIF cable manufacturers for illegally distributing copyrighted content. it's absurd. if i want to upload copyrighted content to my web server and access it from other computers, that is my right. this kind of "distribution" (if you can even call it that) should be protected under fair use, just like bringing a CD to a friend's house or even lending it to them.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26288127)

where's the not-ADD-friendly mod?

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286243)

Thinking further, this would suggest that you couldn't sell or give away a promotional CD given to you by a music label, which I'm sure you could. So I don't know if "free" is really material here...

There was a lawsuit about this and the eBay seller who was selling promotional CDs won the right to continue selling them.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287587)

I'd like more people to call it the "Just 'cuz you said it doesn't make it so" precedent ;)

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286399)

To send your digital file, you have to make a copy of it. That would violate the copyright if you don't have permission. I suppose you could give somebody the physical disk it's on and you'd be okay (legally, even loading into RAM is making a copy, but if you are a legal owner of a copy, the law gives you a right to make temporary copies in RAM).

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286545)

I suppose you could give somebody the physical disk it's on and you'd be okay (legally, even loading into RAM is making a copy, but if you are a legal owner of a copy, the law gives you a right to make temporary copies in RAM).

Actually, it doesn't. 17 USC 117(a) applies to computer programs only, not music. Even the RIAA hasn't tried to play that card, however.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26287551)

Even the RIAA hasn't tried to play that card, however.

Actually, I remember they tried to stop the sale of used CDs, but they didn't do very well in court.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286689)

You could probably rig a disk to be read-once -- to that the physical act of reading from the disk simultaneously scrambled the data so it could not be re-read.

More to the point though, you could easily open a file, unlink the inode, read the file through out to the network, then close the file. The data would still exist on disk if you looked for it, but the file would be sufficiently deleted for copyright purposes. And if they hold that it's not I hold that all audio CD players with a no-skip buffer are devices designed to circumvent copyright.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286915)

Would never work.

All you have to do is copy the data as it is unscrambled or as it is read in the first place - make an outfile as you run the stuff and the copying is complete. That is so easily done that I learned how to do it in Pascal for exe files back in highschool!

Not trying to be ad hominem, just saying that such an idea is simply not feasible.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286865)

You are correct in assuming that right of first sale still applies, which is the issue here.

If you give something away for free, you no longer technically own it. It's impossible to prove ownership and also impossible to claim it. As it is intangible it makes it ever more difficult.

This is just Capital bitching that they don't have their hand in the pot even though they already took their hand out intentionally.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287025)

"free" is considered a sale for the purposes of the law.

The issue is the "copy"...

And nope, linking isn't copying...

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287065)

...is there a legal restriction that stops me from sending that file to someone else, provided that my file is also deleted?

The problem is in the details...

How do you prove that you deleted the file if needed to prove compliance with the law?

It's better just to provide a link... to the file or just to the page.

If you want further protection, link to a search engine instead of the page itself...

That way if the copyright holder asks for you to remove the link you just say... but i don't link to your site. I just link to "example.com" (insert search engine of preference). ;)

Compared to other heavyweights.. (4, Interesting)

lmnfrs (829146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286165)

I think this stuff is standard practice for a big organization in a powerful position. Yesterday I tried buying coffee beans from a small (2 location) coffee shop located in a mall. Apparently Starbucks had leased a spot elsewhere in the mall and negotiated a clause into their contract with the mall. The small shop could sell Starbucks beans or make coffee with their own beans, but was forbidden from selling their own beans.

I'm not sure why that situation doesn't qualify as anti-competitive, but controlling distribution options is a basic part of some businesses' plans.

Re:Compared to other heavyweights.. (3, Interesting)

GiMP (10923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286439)

I once came across something similar where a small restaurant couldn't even sell brewed coffee because of a Starbucks in the shopping center! Likewise, Starbucks had a contract with the landlord...

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287555)

Sorry, you're quite incorrect.

Copyright doesn't matter -- their contract with the companies that distribute their music does.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26285907)

IANAL. I think the murky issue is the licensing. If Capitol Records put the mp3s on some site and said, "Come get free mp3s" and didn't have any terms or conditions, what's a reasonable assumption? Those mp3s are downloadable and distributable by everyone and anyone? Or that only consumers are permitted to download them? Without a license or terms of use/download, it's unclear to me.

Re:What am I missing here??? (4, Insightful)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26285967)

what's a reasonable assumption?

That copyright law still applies? That would be my "reasonable" assumption.

Unless they grant you the right to re-distribute their copyrighted works, you don't have one.

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

Re:What am I missing here??? (2)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286051)

So someone could start a service pointing a user to where they can legally download MP3s? That would work in this case, since Capitol Records is distributing the MP3s themselves.

Re:What am I missing here??? (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286233)

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

You're 100% correct, but I think it'd be darn difficult to show damages. A certain famous case comes to mind where BellSouth claimed Craig Neidorf stole documents worth $79,449. As it turns out, they offered the documents for sale (from their catalog, no less) for $13. When this came out at trial, BellSouth wisely dropped the case.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286597)

What's interesting is that the $80k damages figure was basically the entire cost of production, and assumed that he took the only copy for himself. That takes balls...

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287481)

My understanding (from a book I read on it years ago) was that he catted it to his screen but didn't redistribute or even keep a copy of some (most? all?) of the stuff in question.

Re:What am I missing here??? (2, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287683)

"Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling, available from Gutenberg. I think he pasted parts of it to Phrack, which he published at the time.

Re:What am I missing here??? (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286445)

When copyright applies, the Right of First Sale still trumps it. Thus, you can download an MP3 from an authorised free site, then sell it. You can download it 100,000 times and sell those 100,000 copies. So, if you want to be a distributor, just download the file as many times as you want for free, then sell or give away those copies. As long as you delete them when you transfer ownership, then you have violated no law.

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

Sure there is. Plenty of people got the Cue-Cat for free and sold it. They had the implicit right to re-distribute it after having gotten it for free. That's law, and it trumps copyright. Yes, they don't have the law to get one free Cue-Cat and make 10,000 copies they then distribute, but if they found a way to get 10,000 of them for free, then distributing them is perfectly legal.

Re:What am I missing here??? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286581)

The First-sale doctrine applies only to tangible property. It does not apply to an mp3 you downloaded.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286749)

Since when? If I buy patent rights I'm certainly entitled to re-sell (or even license it) those rights as I please. Likewise with copyright, and other forms of intangible personal property.

You're probably trying to say something about how they're not giving away a copy of the song, but only a license to use a copy of the song. That may or may not be true, depending on what agreement(s) were entered into before downloading the song. Even if it is true, they may or may not be able to enforce a contract that says you can't transfer the license you've been granted.

Re:What am I missing here??? (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287521)

Since when? If I buy patent rights I'm certainly entitled to re-sell (or even license it) those rights as I please.

But if you only license the patent, your usage is limited by the licensing agreement which most likely doesn't let you re-sell or sublicense. Likewise, with licensing of copyrighted material or renting property.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287599)

So why is it legal to sell mp3's in the first place, then?

Re:What am I missing here??? (3, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287787)

The First-sale doctrine applies only to tangible property. It does not apply to an mp3 you downloaded.

Well, that's not entirely correct.

The reason why downloading can be infringement is because when you download a work, you necessarily fix the intangible work in some tangible medium, e.g. RAM, or a hard drive, as you do it. Fixing a work in a tangible medium constitutes reproduction under the copyright law, and reproduction is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

However, first sale applies to all lawfully made copies (a copy is a tangible medium that the work is fixed in; when you download something to your hard drive, the hard drive becomes a copy of that thing, along with whatever else the hard drive is), regardless of who made them. Any person who owns a lawfully made copy may, for example, sell that copy, without permission from the copyright holder. The statute is at 17 USC 109 if you'd like to look at it.

So if you were given permission by the copyright holder to download some music and fix it in any medium you wished, you could just start burning CDs and selling them, and it would fall under first sale. I suppose you could also just give away your hard drive or something, but generally people don't like to do that. However, it's more common that the copyright holder permits you to download the music only if you agree not to distribute copies of that music to other people. In that circumstance, so long as you don't sell, or give away copies, the copies you make are lawfully made. If you do sell them, then they're no longer lawfully made (you've exceeded the scope of the permission to download them in the first place) and so first sale doesn't apply.

I'm sure that folks here can see some parallels to the GPL: you can copy, distribute, and modify GPLed software as you like, so long as you obey the instructions of the GPL to make source available; fail to do that, and you can't have lawfully done those other things.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286835)

Cue-cat isn't a copyrighted thing, it's a physical good, and it wasn't redistributed, it was sold - no copying involved. How would you even do that?

Re:What am I missing here??? (0)

Rashkae (59673) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287049)

Sorry, but that is just entirely false. If you download something from the net, even if you got it for free, you do not automatically have the 'right' to give it to someone else, and you will most certainly get spanked by any judge if you try "selling" to someone else.

The plaintif doesn't even have to prove damages. Copyright infringement carries a stipulative minimum damage in North America.

Re:What am I missing here??? (3, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287319)

You absolutely, certainly have the right to give something you downloaded to someone else, provided you do not also keep a copy. This does not violate copyright in any way.

Re:What am I missing here??? (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286491)

True but irrelevant. Apparently EMI is suing Robertson for the initial act of EMI distributing the file. There is no "re-" prefix on that verb.

Analogy: You tell someone to go to a bookstore (a new one, not even a used one, let's say) and buy a book, they follow your advice and purchase the book, and then the copyright holder of the book sues you for telling people to buy the book. We're talking about the first sale itself, not even a disagreement about what can be done after the first sale. Wow.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286633)

This to me is an amazing, given that US courts at least have said the opposite. Over the summer the courts ruled that promotional CDs could be resold even though they were stamped with a notice that could not be resold, and no sale took place. So what might this precedent say about what is happening here?

Let's say that some business gave away one plastic widget a day per customer. An enterprising family went and got a number of widget and resold it on the open market. First sale doctrine, as I understand it, would support that entrepreneurial free market efficient movement of product.

Let's say that the some other business gave away as many promotional widgets as one wanted, but only one per visit. That entrepreneurial family previously mentioned expanded the business so, for a small fee, they would pick up the widget and deliver it to the person. The fee might be paid directly by the recipient, or indirectly by a third party wishing access to the participant. IS this illegal?

The point is that giving something away as a gift does not grant any additional rights beyond the original copyright, and I do not believe there is anything, at least, in US law, that prevents regifting. This case may not even involve regifting. It may involve just directing a user to the location of the free loot. Even if a copy is made, on could theoretically just download a new copy off the right holder website for each request.

What complicates things here are two things. First, the tracks may not be free. They may in fact be ad supported, in which the right holder expects eyeballs. If that is the issue, it is covered under whatever legal framework that exsits for webscraping. Even so, if they are giving away music to anyone who drops by, and then we are back to the issue of our right to resell property in our possession, even if we did not pay for it, as long as it was not stolen. Or not. who knows.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26285935)

EMI / Capitol is apparently having this lawsuit with MP3Tunes for MP3Tunes distributing the songs EMI had up for free download.

Essentially EMI is telling MP3Tunes they can't distribute that content.

MP3Tunes looks like it's following the idea of 'You gave it away so we can give it away too'. Sort of like the third party market. You buy a product from someone and thus you can resell that product if you want.
EMI gave away the mp3 via downloads to MP3Tunes for free so MP3Tunes posted them and gave them away for free to.
EMI is objecting to this because MP3Tunes is not owned by them and thus they lose some distribution control (and ads and such from their sites, I presume).

It's even simpler than that. (5, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286007)

MP3Tunes wasn't even distributing the music.

All they were doing was providing links to where other entities (including, as it turns out, EMI) were distributing them.

They're saying "EMI told us to remove these links and said that they hadn't authorized any of this music to be downloaded, and look, here's where EMI was authorizing it..."

Re:It's even simpler than that. (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286479)

The whole thing seems slightly tricky to me, in that even if the songs are hosted and freely available on the record label's website, it's still not clear to me by what license people are permitted to download those songs. What I mean is, if I own the copyright to a song, and then I put that song on a website without any kind of a password, does it necessarily follow that I've legally permitted people to download it without regard to any circumstances?

Because certainly it would seem crazy to put a link right on your homepage saying "click here to download this song", and then pursue copyright infringement cases against everyone who downloads it. On the other hand, court cases have recently decided that "making files available" does not equal "distribution", so it seems to me that simply having a file available on an apache server might not constitute an offer to distribute those files. In other words, just because my files are theoretically available online without a password doesn't mean I've given you permission/license to download them.

Re:It's even simpler than that. (1)

Stanza (35421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287641)

Thank you for explaining that, as I didn't even figure out that from the summary.

After a little research (karma link whoring, here I come!) I figured out the web page providing links to where other entities hosts files is here:
http://sideload.com/ [sideload.com]

As far as I can tell, it is run by the same guy who runs mp3tunes.com, and is pretty well integrated, but by just going to mp3tunes.com I did not find anything what you are describing. I found it by going through his blog and reading some of his own descriptions of the lawsuits.

Unfortunately, it's a dreadful interface. I was hoping for something to open up in Songbird and hit play, instead, each song opens up a new webpage, and then, if you're using Songbird, only that one track is on the webpage. If you're using a proper web browser, they have javascript players, "load to locker", "load to mobile", with "Download this track" in small font in comparisons to all the javascript options that actually does link to the file in question.

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287411)

MP3Tunes looks like it's following the idea of 'You gave it away so we can give it away too'.

I thought that was called "non-discriminatory" condition. If party X gave party A something on particular conditions, it can't refuse to give party B the same thing on same conditions.

Essentially, PM3Tunes say that they are being discriminated. IANAL so have no clue whether it is applicable.

Re:What am I missing here??? (5, Informative)

taco8982 (725292) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286191)

I think what you're missing is spelled out fairly effectively in the linked declaration. EMI sued MP3Tunes not for redistributing their IP, but for linking to locations that did. More specifically, they required not only that they remove specific links to specific songs as they had done initially, but that they remove links to every EMI song in existence claiming that they had not authorized ANY of their songs to be distributed online. MP3Tunes declined to do this and was sued. This, however, gives examples of several places where EMI HAD authorized their songs to be distributed as MP3s and thus not every link to every song they own is an infringing link.

Re:What am I missing here??? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286241)

I think what you're missing is spelled out fairly effectively in the linked declaration. EMI sued MP3Tunes not for redistributing their IP, but for linking to locations that did. More specifically, they required not only that they remove specific links to specific songs as they had done initially, but that they remove links to every EMI song in existence claiming that they had not authorized ANY of their songs to be distributed online. MP3Tunes declined to do this and was sued. This, however, gives examples of several places where EMI HAD authorized their songs to be distributed as MP3s and thus not every link to every song they own is an infringing link.

And the accompanying memorandum of law gives you the context in which the declaration was being submitted.

Re:What am I missing here??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286627)

And the accompanying memorandum of law gives you the context in which the declaration was being submitted.

And given that I'm not a lawyer, it's tiring for me to try to decipher.* That's why I usually rely on NYCL to coherently summarize what the issue is in his normally well-written summaries - except it seems you've started counting down the new year early, and are too hooped up on champagne to explain the background of the case. Your summary doesn't even clearly explain who is suing whom for what.

*And given that it's Slashdot, I wouldn't RTFA anyway ;-)

Re:What am I missing here??? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286301)

exactly. And my last remaining mod point expired right before reading it. Darn!

Guys at Pirate Bay Have Some Interesting Insight (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286237)

The guys at the Pirate Bay had some interesting remarks on the matter (the article is here [smouch.net] )

Re:Guys at Pirate Bay Have Some Interesting Insigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286429)

Don't hit the link.You get some stupid video and a bunch of popups.

Firefox NOSCRIPT says your Rick Roll fails it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26287963)

http://smouch.net/lol/rick_head.gif
http://smouch.net/lol/rick_head_2.gif
http://smouch.net/lol/document.layers%5B
http://smouch.net/lol/document.getElementById(
http://smouch.net/lol/document.all%5B
http://smouch.net/lol/document.
http://smouch.net/lol/.style
http://smouch.net/lol/.left
http://smouch.net/lol/.top
http://smouch.net/lol/.visibility
http://smouch.net/lol/window.moveTo(1599,1199);
http://smouch.net/lol/window.moveTo(0,1199);
http://smouch.net/lol/window.moveTo(1599,0);
http://smouch.net/lol/window.moveTo(0,0);
https://ssl./
http://www./
http://smouch.net/lol/text/javascript
http://smouch.net/lol/SMOUCH.NET
http://smouch.net/lol/SMOUCH.NET/LOL
http://smouch.net/lol/dynamicdrive.com
http://smouch.net/lol/snow.gif
http://dynamicdrive.com\/

Re:What am I missing here??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26288003)

What you are missing is that MP3tunes is not being sued for distributing music files, but for linking to music files. EMI alleged that MP3tunes was using links to induce people to violate copyrights. It turns out that at least some of the files being linked to were files which had been placed by EMI itself, thus it was EMI itself distributing the files, thus there was no copyright violation.

Summary: EMI is trying to con the court into believing that when it gives away a song it can then sue a thid party for copyright violations. Bizarre. It's as if you told your friend about a promotion in which the local ice-cream shop was handing out free samples, your friend went and got a free ice-cream, then the ice-cream shop sued you for telling your friend.

EMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26285875)

Suing EMI? What next, is MP3Tunes gonna sue other scene groups like EOS, RNS, KSI?

Here we go..... (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26285927)

I am thinking that 2009 is going to be a very interesting year for the RIAA's legal team. Who hasn't heard/read about the latest foibles from the record companies and I'm willing to bet that this one won't be the last.

Monopolistic practices? Unfair trade practices? Come on now! The RIAA and it's members would NEVER do anything like that. How many here wonder how many tune/files were seeded to P2P networks by the RIAA members themselves never mind paid third parties so that their 'investigative' group could actually find file sharers? Can you say Enron? Yeah, I know it's not even close to the same thing, but I am betting it breaks open as big in the news and it's after affects when the real truth of what big record labels have been up to for the last 5 years.

Take what Sony did. There is an example of how unscrupulous they really are. Imagine the money that they have and they don't have employees that know it was not just morally bad, but illegal? Ignorance of the law is not acceptable in court.... unless you have several hundred million dollars to buy things for legislators holidays and such.

Like my great grandfather used to say... "The shit you see when you don't have a gun... damn"

He was of course talking about deer on the side of the road, which is close to road kill, and I hope that is what 2009 will label the RIAA, so it kind of fits.

Re:Here we go..... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286143)

I fail to see how enforcing your copyrights amounts to unfair trade practice nor does it amount to "Monopolistic practices". Monopolistic practices are NOT illegal or inherently unfair. In a capitalist society like ours a monopoly is the ideal business situation to find yourself in.

I also doubt that they deliberately "seeded" files to p2p systems, they would have no need. There are enough people that don't want to pay and/or don't understand the law that they only have to look to find these.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance.

As far as the RIAA goes, they have indeed engaged in some questionable and downright underhanded legal tactics to prosecute their law suits but that hardly amounts to unfair trade practices.

Re:Here we go..... (2, Insightful)

danlor (309557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286363)

orly? Price fixing? Extortion? Abuse of power? Collusion?

Does this open your eyes?

Re:Here we go..... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287011)

Open my eyes to what exactly.

Who or what is abusing their power. Who is in collusion, and with whom. When does collective bargaining become extortion and vice versa. Who has done the price fixing.

Yes some of those things are truly illegal and if you can convict any one of them (as in the case of Enron) it is a good thing. You still have not negated the fact that as a business I want a monopoly.

Re:Here we go..... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286409)

No. Monopolies are inherently unfair. That is why they are
highly limited and strictly regulated. Everyone (except
certain robber baron wannabes) realize how destructive and
counter productive monopolies tend to be.

Content publishers (calling them creators would be inaccurate)
want to pervert centuries of practice in terms of first sale
and other basic rights associated with ownership of something
or ownership of a copy of something. Upsetting this particular
apple cart would have far reaching implications beyond some
corporate pop band and their latest hit that will likely be
forgotten by next year.

What kind of collateral damage is Britney Spears or Metallica worth?

Re:Here we go..... (0)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287143)

Define unfair.
Look Mr. Monopolies are unfair, If I invent some new fangled widget and I'm the only one that knows how to make them, I have a monopoly. As long as I can have it I'm going to take steps to keep it. Like copyrighting and patenting and I will actively pursue any legal means to keep that monopoly as long as I possibly can. It's not until I step over the line and begin acting in an illegal manner that my monopoly becomes a bad thing. Incidentally you need to go read the anti-monopoly laws again, they are neither highly limited nor strictly regulated. Commerce itself has regulations as does advertising and there are fraud regulations these are the factors that regulate the monopolies

I am so tired of this whiny bullshit attitude that says that every monopoly is a bad thing just because it is a monopoly.

Re:Here we go..... (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286469)

I'm curious. How do you explain the root kit on Sony CDs with ignorance or stupidity? Anyone that stupid should not be in business. period. The Sony legal team has enough experience to protect trademarks, read the news, and study the laws. Any software release that was not run through the legal team opens the company to unknown litigation costs. When you have that much to lose, being stupid is not an option.

Enron, as I mentioned them, is but one example of a big business going out of their way to screw over customers and employees alike. I don't think it's so hard to imagine that executives at Sony and other record companies are just as immoral and unscrupulous. In fact, it's rather easy. Yes, you can go ahead and keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I won't and there are a lot of people feeling the same way. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... or if you like, once bitten, twice shy. Oh, then there is an old fav: A leopard does not change his spots. If you are familiar with them, Metallica has a song about a scorpion which seems rather appropriate.

If you believe that this is about enforcing copyrights... I'm aghast. After all that the RIAA and members have done, now saying who can have free downloads? That's not copyright, it's tantamount to saying 'here is a free MP3, but you can't use it for anything other than listening alone to it at home. A completely unrealistic expectation under current and all foreseeable copyright laws.

If Ford gave you a free car but then said you can't put any bumper stickers on it, would you tell them to fuck off? Anyone else can put bumper stickers on the free cars we gave them, but not you! This is the thing about public domain. Once a thing is released to the public domain you have lost control of how it is then distributed.

There is little if any difference between reality here and having a site that has advertisements on it that points (with deep links) to sites that have free MP3 files, although that is a bit cheap, using someone else's bandwidth for the actual downloads. Point remains. If it's free for downloading, it doesn't matter one iota how the downloader finds the link.

Regardless of how unsavory this company might actually be, this is wrong of EMI, and should they win it would set a very bad precedent for copyrights, patents, and many other things with regard to the public domain and 'things' released to the public domain with no license. You can indeed follow a URL link to the actual file and not be presented a EULA or license, so whether they intended it that way or were just stupid, they are free for downloading and free of licensing, and therefore EMI has lost distribution rights of any kind.

Para 15 says it all really:
                              In short, EMI has engaged in active marketing of its music directly and through hundreds if not thousands of online music partners. As a consequence, thousands of EMI songs are available on the Internet for free download with its authorization. Yet EMI is seeking to impose liability upon MP3tunes because it runs a search engine that links to many of the same files. MP3tunes respectfully requests that EMIâ(TM)s motion to dismiss be denied.

Re:Here we go..... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287311)

Ignorance of one form and stupidity of another. These guys do evil, they are not inherently evil. Enron was actively evil and many but not all of those guys are being punished, grant you not what I would like but they are.

"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself. This seems pretty clear to me. The copyright law also says that you must be granted rights explicitly rather than assuming them. If that also applies to advertising my goods then the location of the ones that I am giving away for free for certain purposes (usually promotional to a specific group) is mine to distribute as well. In order for them to be released to the public domain EMI et al would have to NOT defend the rights to them. I think they also have to explicitly declare them to be public domain but that's a bit fuzzy I think. Now with physical goods things are a bit different. In order to properly use your car analogy it would have to be like this. I have a thingy that makes cars that are here for a short time and then they are gone into the ether. I grant you the use of it to look at the pretty cars it produces. I also don't grant you the right to make copies of this thing and give those away. I don't grant you the right to figure out how to make the cars real and give them away, only I have the right to do that. Its a bad analogy but I think it applies. "You can indeed follow a URL link to the actual file and not be presented a EULA or license" And no simply because it is available on a particular URL for download it is NOT free of licensing nor do you even have permission to download it. If that were true then "making available" would indeed be equivalent to "distributing" and there goes that argument you guys so carefully tried to defend. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From my point of view this guy's law suit is about him trying to grab shit he don't own and then saying, well you gave it away why can't I.
And they say well you don't have the right to do that.

Re:Here we go..... (2, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287977)

"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.

Hm, sounds problematic to me. Copyright doesn't include an exclusive right to listen to music. The copyright holder can control making copies of the music, making derivative works based on the music, performing the music, broadcasting the music, etc. but not actually listening to it. That's free.

The closest the copyright holder could get would be to not let anyone else have copies of the music, and to require anyone who wanted to listen to have to pay a fee to do so. This would basically be providing a venue -- the same thing that a concert hall does -- and would really have nothing to do with copyright. Charging admission to venues works just as well with public domain materials (e.g. paying money to go see an uncopyrighted movie in a theater).

The other stuff though; the 'do anything with it you wish' is far more interesting. That would permit people to, say, make derivative works based on the music (e.g. a music video), and with the paltry limitations, to publicly perform it (e.g. on MTV) or rent out copies of it.

The copyright law also says that you must be granted rights explicitly rather than assuming them.

No, it says no such thing. In fact, copyright licenses are probably more often implied than express. For example, your post to which I am responding is (probably) copyrighted. You didn't expressly give me permission to download it (as I necessarily must simply in order to read it), but were you to take me to court over it, you'd surely lose, because your conduct in posting it to a public forum such as this granted me that right.

The law does say that exclusive licenses have to be written and signed by the licensor, though, so perhaps that's what you were thinking of.

If that also applies to advertising my goods then the location of the ones that I am giving away for free for certain purposes (usually promotional to a specific group) is mine to distribute as well.

Why would the location be copyrightable at all? Sounds like an uncopyrightable fact to me.

I don't grant you the right to figure out how to make the cars real and give them away, only I have the right to do that.

Well, you'd have to have that right. Certainly copyright only covers a few specific rights with regard to a work, leaving the rest to the public domain even during the copyright term (e.g. while not everyone has the right to print up new copies of a book, everyone has the right to read extant copies at will). I think the analogy does break down here -- patents require you to tell the world how to do it, if that's what the subject of the patent is. Trade secrets don't protect against reverse engineering, so anyone is free to apply their own brainpower to breaking your control over the secret by independently discovering it. And while we're all well aware of how perverted copyrights have become, traditionally they mainly tried to protect published works, not secret ones. (Of course, there is good reason to protect manuscripts that are intended to be published in the near future, lest pirates cut the author off at the pass, as it were, but it is important to keep this from being abused; if an author has no intent to publish, or is being ridiculously slow, then, setting aside whatever right of privacy implications might arise, copyright policy would favor the pirate; creative works are only good for the public when the public can get at them)

And no simply because it is available on a particular URL for download it is NOT free of licensing nor do you even have permission to download it.

True. Merely because a work can be accessed at a particular URL doesn't mean that everyone has the right to do so where it would infringe to do so (and since downloading is necessarily copying, permission or an exception in the law is needed for copyrighted works).

The trick as I see it is this: If the copyright holder doesn't want people being able to get at a work via a deep link, then all the copyright holder has to do is to: 1) take down the work; or 2) use a server that foils deep linking in some fashion (I'm sure this is more or less doable). If they permit deep linking, though, I'd be inclined to say that it would not be secondary infringement for deep linkers to link to it, which enables users to download. After all, it took an affirmative act on the part of the copyright holder to put the thing on the net to begin with. If he didn't do what he thought he was doing, the onus is on him to fix it, not on the rest of the world to ignore his mistake.

Music doesn't run the internet.Ther's no MP3 flood (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26285947)

I read it here [anonymouse.org] on the complete user statistics.

It's not 4chan, so you're safe. Capital Records should be off the hook for Copyright liabilities by this.

More nonsense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26285957)

I'm an ex-MP3tunes employee. Michael Robertson is a scumbag. He's repeatedly fucked partners (we had a deal with Warner Music to sell physical CDs and provide the customer with MP3s instantly -- he decided to sell just the MP3s, so they got pissed off and shut us down the next day; driving away partners and shutting off legitimate business channels is a great way to fail), abused employees, etc. MP3tunes is down to 4 people from its height of 14, due to his complete and utter incompetence. Linspire is dead due to him stealing money (read Kevin Carmony's blog for all the dirty details, and there's far more that isn't there). SIPPhone is dying due to him not spending money on his companies and pocketing it instead.

As much as I support many of his efforts, he's a snake in the grass and everyone knows it now. There's not a single respectable company that's willing to come within a mile of him due to his previous actions, and this is his dying breath.

I can only hope this bankrupts him so he'll stop hurting people

P.S. When this lawsuit began, he posted on his blog about them trying to "take his minivan". He doesn't mention his massive ranch in San Diego, his Lexus (which cost about two of his (extremely underpaid) programmers' yearly salaries), or his $20M beach house in Del Mar. Fuck MR.

So, "a pox on both their houses"? (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286037)

Even if he's "a scumbag" that doesn't mean that EMI are angels. Sometimes there aren't any good guys.

Re:So, "a pox on both their houses"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286135)

EMI is far from angels, but this is what happens when you stab people in the back. MR incites lawsuits and then plays the "big man trying to take down the little guy" role. It's bullshit.

oblig Riddick quote (4, Funny)

irtza (893217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286279)

In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.

Re:oblig Riddick quote (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286785)

In normal times, evil would be fought by good

Outside of a book, where else have you found pure good battling against pure evil? HINT: it doesn't exist.

Re:oblig Riddick quote (1)

cdrdude (904978) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286929)

You mean other than NYCL?

pure good battling against pure evil (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287377)

http://lessig.org/ [lessig.org]

Re:oblig Riddick quote (1)

the_wesman (106427) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287589)

Outside of a book, where else have you found pure good battling against pure evil?

in movies, silly

Re:More nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286043)

Btw, if anyone is interested in the Warner ordeal, it was under the name AnywhereCD to insulate the core MP3tunes company.

Re:More nonsense (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286177)

Michael Robertson is a scumbag.

I thought he sounded familiar. As parent mentions, here's a link to the blog of Kevin Carmony, [blogspot.com] former President and CEO of Linspire, for similar-sounding story.

Free != free to redistribute (2, Informative)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286021)

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).

- Roach

Re:Free != free to redistribute (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286077)

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

Numerous URLs listed in the September 4, 2007 letter
clearlywere not infringing as they were links to well known and reputable music magazines such
as Filter, Spin, and Paste Store. Nevertheless, relying upon EMI's notice, MP3tunes promptly
removed all of the URLs listed in the September 4, 2007 letter. -- from the PDF

Does linking to other sites that are actually hosting the music count as "copying and redistributing"? Where does that leave Google and Yahoo?

Re:Free != free to redistribute (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286221)

I read the actual summary of the lawsuit, not the linked page (which I've now read).

They're linking directly to the (unrestricted) .mp3 files, which is interesting, actually.

IMHO, it's being a scumbag, piggy-backing off someone else's server to make money ... but it will be interesting to see what the judge rules.

Of course, those sites actually distributing the mp3s should be denying requests that don't come from their own pages or building in some other mechanism to prevent the direct linking. That would fix that little problem.

Re:Free != free to redistribute (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286535)

They're linking directly to the (unrestricted) .mp3 files, which is interesting, actually.

It's what just about every "MP3 blog", including the ones EMI was using, does.

Re:Free != free to redistribute (2, Interesting)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286133)

Which might lead to a point about providing links;

I checked the links on this doc, most work and only one asked me for any personal information. No click through, no shrink-wrap 'license' just the song presented in my browser. This might be the only complaint EMI might/should have with MP3Tunes, they are circumventing (theory) the presentation/context of this music. The larger gripe, and where EMI should be aimed, but for what ever reason they're not as they (the RIAA) seem to enjoy attacking customers and folks that make finding things easier (index services) are the non EMI folks also providing the music. I hate to put it this way but scumbags or not, MP3Tunes or Google, where does this kind of harassment end? I can find 'filez' just as easy with google as I can with any of the search sites.

IANAL (sounds like a new apple product, no?)

Re:Free != free to redistribute (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286195)

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

No shit.

The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).

- Roach

THEY WERE NOT REDISTRIBUTING IT. They were *linking* to content stored on Capitol/EMI servers, or servers owned by third parties (such as Akamai) for the purpose of distribution Capital/EMI content. The point that they're making in the court submission, if you bothered to read it, was that it was acceptable for parties (maybe Google) to link to it, but not MP3Tunes.

Re:Free != free to redistribute (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286285)

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

      No, but it becomes harder to justify $150,000 per copy per title when you a) give them away and b) sell them for $0.99 or so through a third party. Two wrongs don't make a right, but those who abuse the law can't complain when their loophole is closed. In fact, we can ALL breathe a sigh of relief as the pendulum swings back towards the side of sanity for a while.

Re:Free != free to redistribute (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286967)

Not exactly...

When you receive a work... you are entitled to sell it at the price you see fit.

Copyright only applies when a "copy" is made... It isn't even remotly related to the "sell"...

Appears to be Accurate (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286067)

I used these URL's (from the PDF) and they appear to be functional:

http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/lilru/dontilookgood/lil_ru_dont_i_look_good_cl.mp3 [edgeboss.net]
http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/beastieboys/misc/acapella/Car_Thief_A_Cappella.mp3?ewk13=1 [edgeboss.net]
http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/doves/skystartsfalling/audio/skystartsfalling.mp3 [edgeboss.net]
http://angel.edgeboss.net/download/angel/seth_lakeman_audio/digitalep/king_and_country_128k.mp3 [edgeboss.net]
http://mute.edgeboss.net/download/mute/xx_teens/darlin_original.mp3 [edgeboss.net]
http://mute.edgeboss.net/download/mute/moby/mobylastnight_sampler.mp3 [edgeboss.net]
http://www.emichrysalis.co.uk/vincentvincentandthevillains/music/track0.mp3 [emichrysalis.co.uk]
http://emichrysalis.co.uk/herculesandloveaffair/downloads/16_11_07/Hercules_Theme.mp3 [emichrysalis.co.uk]
http://www.definitivejux.net/store/catalog-product/US-A4T-04-173-00.html [definitivejux.net]
http://goldenhorse.co.nz/mp3s/Dont%20Wake%20Me%20Up.mp3 [goldenhorse.co.nz]
http://goldenhorse.co.nz/mp3s/Fish.mp3 [goldenhorse.co.nz]
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/sparklehorse/download.php?FILENAME=shadeandhoney.mp3&DOWNLOAD=1 [parlophone.co.uk]
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/mailers/morningrunner/Cant_Get_It_Right.mp3 [parlophone.co.uk]
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/babyshambles/timesdownload/download.php?DOWNLOAD=1&FILENAME=babyshambles-lost_art_of_murder.mp3 [parlophone.co.uk]
http://www.becrecordings.com/christaylor/1.mp3 [becrecordings.com]
http://www.becrecordings.com/christaylor/2.mp3 [becrecordings.com]
http://www.radiomute.com/rmmusic/fieldrecordings-mad%20world.mp3 [radiomute.com]

(slashcode is attempting to auto-link in a <code> block... a pity for those who understand xargs)

Re:Appears to be Accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286997)

Its alright, the people who understand xargs also understand sed.

Goodbye, EMI. Hello, MP3Tunes. (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286111)

Michael Robertson, has accused the plaintiffs EMI, Capitol Records, and other EMI record labels of flooding the internet with free MP3s of their songs for promotional purposes, 'free to everyone (except, apparently, MP3tunes).'

It reads like a bandful of the world's smallest violins, all playing in orchestral majesty. In fact, I feel a song coming on!

Is he suggesting there's an unlimited supply?
That there's no reason why?
Or with the ad links in the frame
He's cashing in on Slashdot fame?
(Who?)
EMI! EMI! EMI!

Capitol's lawyers makin' fuss,
From edge-served networks, download us,
An unlimited amount,
They save on bandwidth, in and out.

When mp3.com was crucified,
For business models that had died,
It was a website that was rivaled by none,
(never ever never...)
And you thought that he was faking?
That it was all just money-making?
You don't think EMI will steal?
Even if they lose their last appeal?

Oh, don't judge a band by its cover,
Unless another you discover,
And blind acceptance is a sign,
of RIAA fools who stand in line
(like)
EMI! EMI! EMI!

Unlimited edition,
With an unlimited supply,
That was the only reason,
MP3.com said goodbye,

Unlimited supply (EMI!)
And there is no reason why! (EMI!)
But with the ad links in the frame, (EMI!)
He's cashing in on Slashdot fame!
Though Beam-it bent UMG's rules (EMI!)
R.I.A.A.'re still useless fools (EMI!)
Unlimited supply.

Hello, MP3Tunes. Goodbye, EMI.

- With apologies to the Sex Pistols, and you should all be grateful I can't sing, or I'd have dubbed it onto the original track and uploaded the result to MP3.com as a parody.

All I want to know is that if Robertson wins, will he carry out on Sigue Sigue Sputnik's 22-year-old threat to Buy EMI [www.last.fm]

Monetary Damage Claims? (1)

tortoise42 (673613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286157)

Perhaps this would stifle RIAA claims of "monetary damage" resulting from illegal electronic re-distribution.

What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26286317)

I couldn't really figure out what NYCL's summary was trying to say here, other than link to the 10-page declaration as simple info.

Are we meant to read something into this, other than the general "Labels are doing shenanigans again" message?

Or does this feed into the RIAA issue or even into current cases in some specific way?

Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one (4, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286419)

I couldn't really figure out what NYCL's summary was trying to say here, other than link to the 10-page declaration as simple info. Are we meant to read something into this, other than the general "Labels are doing shenanigans again" message? Or does this feed into the RIAA issue or even into current cases in some specific way?

I wasn't really "trying to say" anything, just reporting on some interesting facts. Yes this plays into all of the record companies' stupid cases, in MANY ways, relevant to MANY issues. No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum, but lawyers representing defendants will have a field day with this stuff...

Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one (1)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287159)

No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum

Your posting history says otherwise. :)

Thinking about this makes me laugh. (2, Funny)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286331)

1. The links work.
2. Several of us have used them.

thinking about the suit (providing links to music)
this document is nice piece of work, in writing it, reading it,
linking to it, we have all taken part in the supposed violation of
EMI's rights.

many words come to mind but the choice of mad world as one of the linked songs, well thats enough for me.

Is this just a "deep linking" situation? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26286421)

The summary is screwy. From RTFA is it looks like Robertson is saying that EMI, not Robertson's company, was distributing the files in question, and Robertson just linked to EMI's servers. I don't think Robertson is saying, "They give it away for free, so I can too;" I think he's saying, "They give it away for free, and we help people find it."

It looks like mp3tunes.com is a search engine, not a file server. (Am I missing something?) If true, then I hope EMI is punished for their pointless harassment of Robertson.

I email 10's GB of illegal MP3s back to the RIAA (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287003)

I want to make sure they get what they're asking for so I hammer them tons of ill gotten files. Regularly.

EMI is one of the better labels (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287399)

they produce and distribute their cd content without any shitty drms. they are a breeze to rip to mp3. thanks to them, i have 24 cds' worth classic music pieces on my computer as mp3 without any issues.

when i acquired my first classics collection set and put on random shuffle continually on my 6 cd changer set and used that way, i blew it off in around 1.5 months. a pioneer 6 cd changer - gone.

then i realized i should rip them. ghastly task, due to shitty drm they place on cds. but when i attempted it went effortless. great quality. only later i learnt that emi does not put drm shit on their cds. they are trying to adapt to the modern times.

and this website, whose sole purpose and means of existence is internet culture, is suing THAT label, instead of RIAA whores ??!?

i wouldnt do anything with mp3tunes if it was the last website on earth, after this point. they can shove all their services up wherever they see fit now.

Re:EMI is one of the better labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26287857)

"EMI classic" might be nice, but the rest of the british emi group labels are the most evil ones among the RIAA/BPI evils you can imagine!

Claiming that EMI does no DRM shit with their CDs is simply false! (they might not do it anymore, but EMI was one of the most active ones at least here in europe with their CDs)

was (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26287903)

no cd i bought from emi had any drm on it. when i see emi label now, i buy without any worries.

and im in turkey, so probably we are using the same source for supplier.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?