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!

MP3Tunes 'Safe Harbor' Court Challenge Approaching

kdawson posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-friend-of-yours dept.

Media 94

markjhood2003 sends along an update on a story we first discussed two years back: EMI's lawsuit against MP3Tunes on the claim that cloud storage of music is illegal. The case has gathered importance as cloud computing has grown in capability and acceptance. Opposition briefs in the case are due on Wednesday and oral arguments will start in January. EMI is making the unusual move (the opposition calls it "desperate") of insisting that the EFF's friend-of-the-court brief not be accepted. "EMI says the brief filed last week by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups supporting MP3tunes’s argument that it’s not responsible for what music its users store on its servers should be barred because it is 'a pure advocacy piece, not a "friend of the court."' Amicus curiae briefs are often filed by interest groups and the government in cases that could set major precedents, in order to illustrate the broader ramifications of the case. ... After three years of litigation, EMI argues that EFF’s brief is too long, thereby 'circumventing' the court’s 'page restrictions' causing 'additional burden' to the court and “prejudice” to the EMI. ... In addition, EMI says, EFF’s brief 'contains unsupported speculation that is not helpful to the Court.' Anyone can submit such a brief as long as they’re not a party to the case, and judges have full discretion whether to accept them. They almost always do."

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

Enough Already. (3, Insightful)

BigSes (1623417) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325022)

Sigh.

Re:Enough Already. (1, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325424)

Sorry, but you only licensed that file. And the terms of that license do not permit you to give it to another company to stream it back to you.

Re:Enough Already. (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34329436)

Define "file". If you use a RAID system you're already storing more than just a string of bits. What about if this "file" is on local network storage - are you allowed to copy chunks of it to your local hard drive while it's playing? And then into memory - that's another copy.. ker-ching!

A file is an abstract concept - it makes no practical difference - and should make no legal difference - whether it's in the cloud, on your local computer or somewhere in between, or all of those places at once. All that matters is whether or not you can access the data.

Re:Enough Already. (2, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34329878)

You can play interesting legal games with this. The OFF System p2p, for example, allows you to download a potentially infringing file without ever actually downloading any of the data within - only completly random data. Twice as much as in the file you want. But, if XORed in the correct way... out comes what you really want. It's billed as a p2p network that's completly legal, unless you assemble the files at the recieving eng (Which, of course, can't be easily detected by an observer). I doubt it'd stand up in court, but it's still an interesting concept.

Re:Enough Already. (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326744)

Sorry... i hold copyright on 'Sigh.'
Storing it on the /. cloud is not permissible.

A private storage space is private even in cloud (4, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325066)

Physical location of information storage is irrelevant.

What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of
and access rights to the information. That is the person who is
in possession of the information and determining its disposition.

Whether a person chooses to manage their personal or personally owned
information on a local hard drive, a usb stick, or a rented chunk of the
cloud ought to be completely irrelevant.

If law is going to rule on uses of internet architecture, law had
better understand fundamental concepts of internet architecture,
such as virtual private networks and idependent security realms.

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34325168)

And you
should under-
stand how the
textarea func-
tions.

Re:line length in posts (2, Informative)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325266)

Research on reading typically comes up with results like the following
(google it for more details)

- Longer line lengths generally facilitate faster reading speeds.

- Shorter line lengths result in increased comprehension.

- The optimal number of characters per line is between 45 and 65.
    (some studies say 66 to 70, but you get the point.)

Re:line length in posts (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325462)

80, the optimum length is 80.

It should be green text on a black background.

Re:line length in posts (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326336)

are you sure it isn't 42?

Re:line length in posts (1, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326362)

You have zero understanding of graphic design. Maximum readability comes from black text on a yellow background.

Re:line length in posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34327140)

My experience [wikipedia.org] agrees with you. Additionally, the offtopic mod makes little sense in a multi-threaded discussion.

Re:line length in posts (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34329292)

...and this WHOOSH was brought to you in green text on a red background blinking to red text on a green background.

Re:line length in posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34325616)

Research on reading typically comes up with results like the following
(google it for more details)

- Longer line lengths generally facilitate faster reading speeds.

- Shorter line lengths result in increased comprehension.

- The optimal number of characters per line is between 45 and 65.

    (some studies say 66 to 70, but you get the point.)

Well played... ...And no, I am not the parent author.

7

Re:line length in posts (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34326566)

So what? That's not how web browsers work. If you want narrower columns of text, you resize your browser window. It's not up to you to cut up your content in rows of x characters.

Re:line length in posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34327710)

Funny, I thought it was up to the developer/poster to determine how they want their information to flow... hence the ability for him to do so.

Re:line length in posts (1)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328532)

Oh I don't know, I figure it's my text, and I'm writing it, I'll format it however I damn well please. :p

Re:line length in posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34330946)

I could see complaining if he put every word on a separate line, but I cannot see faulting him for preferring to present it in a somewhat narrower format then he'd get by default.

With the deeply nested way the conversations on Slashdot are formatted, you need to view it in a wide browser (or deeper comments become illegibly squashed), while I prefer to keep the text in relatively narrow columns even in the higher comments.

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325756)

Attaching data to a medium which cannot be duplicated and degrades over time is the cornerstone of the entertainment industry's business model. Cloud computing, networks, and any other form of data duplication and replication is therefore its natural enemy.

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325794)

If we accept EMI's argument, then all of the online data backup services are also facilitating copyright infringement and should be shut down. Microsoft's latest buzzword is "the cloud", why haven't they filed an amicus brief?

And by the way, how the fuck can anyone object to an amicus brief? Wouldn't doing so just result in dozens of similar organization filing essentially the same brief? I assure you, EMI, we can file 'em faster than you can object to 'em!

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (2, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326510)

And by the way, how the fuck can anyone object to an amicus brief?

"The water's rushing in! Throw this sandbag on it!

"That's no sandbag, that's a baby!"

"It's a sandbag. Throw it on the pile and I'll get another".

The tactic relates to removing your opponent's argumentative ammunition, by any means. If they have a devistating argument, all the more reason to try to get it thrown out. Nice, or Right, doesn't enter into it.

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326084)

Physical location of information storage is irrelevant.

good luck in getting US court decisions executed regarding data stored in North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.

3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts) (1)

lpq (583377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327032)

Unfortunately, there is a big flaw in your reasoning.

Courts have ruled, that anytime you had your information over to a 3rd party, it isn't subject to constitutional protections preventing search and seizure -- based on the the theory that 3rd party's are not 100% trustworthy.

Based on that, if you store something in the cloud -- courts have already ruled that it's NOT your private stuff anymore -- so theoretically, 'anyone' could make a copy, though most obviously anyone in the employ of the 3rd party (a music cloud service could provide a gigantic DB for discrete employees to obtain all sorta of digital information that could be resold or made available over on unrelated servers -- not to mention anyone in law enforcement wouldn't need a court order to obtain their own copy of 1000's of customer's songs -- again something that might find itself duplicated before it's stored in the evidence locker.

Sure -- these situations are based on unethical or illegal actions by others, but if the cloud storage wasn't allowed, they wouldn't have had the opportunity. Such large quantities of digital 'goods' might be too tempting for someone to siphon off copies on the side.

Of course, I think such arguments are *bull*, and are similar to arguments against legalizing cannabis cultivation -- because it would increase the crime of people stealing it (so does allowing people to own cars & stereos)!...

Unfortunately, there are idiots who believe that if you have a freedom that tempts others to do crime, then that's enough to restrict you from having that freedom. How that attitude passes as acceptable in a 'free' society, is beyond me, but the laws are there and there are stupid court rulings to support these stupid laws.

Re:3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34327548)

Because people don't deserve that kind of freedom. They just don't have the responsibility, as the death of my 9 year old daughter has proven.

So fuck you and anyone else who thinks they have the right to do whatever they want to incite crime and allow it to affect others.

Re:3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts (1)

lpq (583377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34336772)

incite != tempt.

I tempt and everyone else 'tempts', but simply owning things that others "want". So you are basically saying 'fuck everyone' for the death of your daughter.

How about putting the blame where it belongs -- on the murderer? Blaming all of society for the actions of those who commit criminal acts is unhelpful -- since there will always be those who are 'tempted' by almost 'anything'.

If you go with the logic of restricting everything that might tempt someone, then you need to remove ALL difference from everyone, so there will be no possibility that someone might want something that someone else has. That means everyone does the same job too, which is impossible.

It is impossible to create a perfectly equal society without any situation where someone might want something someone else has.

Since there is no place in all of nature where such conditions are exist -- they would be unnatural as well as impossible.

The only solution is to train people to get their needs met in a socially acceptable manner (not through violence or theft).

The laws to attempt to remove temptation are harmful to humankind -- they take away benefits from the whole of humanity in order to accommodate those with violent and thieving. It's the person with the bad tendencies who is 'sick'. They are the ones that need fixing.

You don't restrict healthy people from their freedoms in order to accommodate the sick --- you fix the sick.

It's perversely backwards to restrict the freedom of the healthy, so that sick people can walk the streets. How can you say that people don't deserve freedom so that the sick can walk free? People DO deserve their freedoms, as long as they don't directly impinge on other people or their freedoms, but the idea that I can't have a freedom because some sick person might create a problem?

Sorry, but it is the sickness that needs treatment, restricting and, if necessary, removal from society. To put the responsibility on the healthy for those who can't control themselves -- that's EXACTLY the excuse used to keep women covered and unable to walk the streets alone in theocratic countries -- because the men are tempted and can't control themselves, so it's the women who end up with no freedom. That's NOT a free society, and not one I'd want to live in. If you want that -- move to a country that restricts freedom based on temptation, as those laws have no place in a free society.

Re:3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339188)

You are forgetting that there is something called a "line" that all rational people are able to draw. Lest you suggest that possession of child pornography should be legal?

Things that tempt others to commit crimes:
- Leaving your car running unattended.
- Leaving your bike unlocked.
- Wearing sexually exciting clothing.
- Being alone while drunk/drugged.
- Being alone outside at night.
- Walking around with $500 cash hanging out of your pocket.
- Books encouraging criminal activity.
- Video encouraging or dramatizing criminal activity.
- Games encouraging or allowing players to commit criminal activity.
- Allowance of anonymous information transfer.
- Not having proper security for data, military facilities, or highly trafficked/dangerous public facilities (airports, public transit, etc).
- Encouraging criminal activity in public.

I would say that all of these should be illegal. However, these things are tempting, but not as severely, and thus may be allowed:
- Books dramatizing criminal behaviour.
- Video games involving small amounts of violence.
- Video involving concensual completely non-violent adult sexual activity, without any kind of censorship.
- Sexual promiscuity (if kept private and not adultery).
- Jaywalking (someone may be tempted to try and hit a moving target... but clearly this is insane.)
- Leaving things of petty value unattended.
- Disagreement with another person (debating/arguing).
- Seperation of a couple initiated by only one of the pair.
- Making unpopular statements in public.
- Wearing clothing that may be seen as sexual to a small portion of the population (ex: miniskirts, dresses, NOT lingerine or extremely tight clothing, see through clothing is obviously a no).

Hardly an exhaustive list. However, I'm certain you can see now. Our society already takes many of these steps. For example, child pornography, hate speech laws, gun restriction laws, deviant pornography restriction laws, laws against leaving doors unlocked, indecency laws, etc.

And fixing the sick? What an orwellian concept!
Punish the crime to dissuade it only when the crime is committed, or we will really have problems. The people who incite the crimes should be fined (or jailed, depending on the severity), those who commit the crimes should be jailed (or executed, depending on the severity).

Re:3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts (1)

lpq (583377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34344906)

Things you think should be illegal:

Being alone outside at night? -- So we should be locked up at night for our own safety?

Allowing anonymous information transfer? -- so no more anonymity on the net, you say?

Wearing sexually provocative clothing? -- (By who's standard? Being completely naked isn't sexually provocative to a nudist, but an exposed ankle might be to a moslem.

Books encouraging 'criminal activity' -- depends on whatever you define as criminal at the time. What do you define as 'encouraging'? Some people think that just by talking about it at all is 'encouraging'.

So many of your restrictions rely upon subjective definitions.

And I don't care how sexy the outfit is -- there can be no excuse for forcible rape -- treatment should be castration on the 1 offense where guilt is established without a doubt. If there are mitigating circumstances, then maybe on a 2nd offense. Sorry you find that Orwellian. But right now, the US definition of 'fixing' offenders is to lock them up for very long sentences. Many societies use various methods to "encourage" offenders to change their behavior, (i.e. use various methods to 'fix' them). Orwellian? If you say so.

Your list of restrictions sound like you'd be someone comfortable living in Iran or Saudi Arabia -- perhaps you should consider moving there rather than attempting to change a free society into a theocratic one.

Re:3rd-party private storage isn't private (courts (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330602)

You don't store stuff in the cloud in plaintext form. You encrypt it.

Let them copy all they want. The cloud is supposed to offer storage and backup, not copy protection.

Calling it a cloud doesn't change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34330164)

You are still putting your data on a server located in another jurisdiction and that other jurisdiction has other laws which you need to consider. More fool you.

It matters very much where the data is stored. Here in the UK for instance we have some privacy laws which you don't have in the US, yet our councils and other public bodies outsource data processing to international companies which then transfer that data to servers in other jurisdictions, thus circumventing the UK law.

And why shouldn't an American company handling data on an American server apply American law to the data they have been given? No reason at all. The UK public bodies should never have allowed the data to be transferred out of their jurisdiction in the first place.

Please don't offer up the ridiculous, unenforceable, voluntary Safe Harbour agreement which, it is touted, gets around the problem of differing data protection legislation in participant countries. It is voluntary, self registering and a joke.

Don't put your data in the cloud and then wonder why someone else has access to it. It's your own fault.

Re:Calling it a cloud doesn't change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34331678)

It's like when we have "detainees" over here, and unfortunately our laws don't allow us to torture them. But if we ship them out of the country, well, we have no control over what happens to them there. It's not our fault if they get tortured there. How were we supposed to know that would happen?

Re:A private storage space is private even in clou (1)

GasparGMSwordsman (753396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34334726)

What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of and access rights to the information. That is the person who is in possession of the information and determining its disposition.

Possession is irrelevant in copyright issues. It has never been a violation to possess a copy of something. It has been a violation to distribute a copy.

In this case the claim is that the service can be used to distribute copyrighted information. If it can be shown that a primary use of the service is to share the music between multiple "entities" then MP3Tunes is pretty much hosed.

Cloudiots (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325140)

Whats the difference between could storage and traditional storage? Buzzwords, and possibly their synergy.

Re:Cloudiots (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325290)

Whats the difference between could storage and traditional storage? Buzzwords, and possibly their synergy.

Who cares about buzzwords? The only thing I care about is...is it green?!

Re:Cloudiots (2, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325368)

The only thing I care about is...is it green?!

And does it give blowjobs?

Re:Cloudiots (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327154)

I sure hope none of the green things do!

Re:Cloudiots (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325382)

Whats the difference between could storage and traditional storage? Buzzwords, and possibly their synergy.

Who cares about buzzwords? The only thing I care about is...is it green?!

Yes actually, it's on SUSE!

Re:Cloudiots (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331054)

I store my data in the back of a hummer. And yes, the hummer, and the disks, are both painted green. I'm doing my part!

EMI expands scope (2, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325154)

In their next case, they'll contend that not only are users breaking the law when they store their music on a hard drive they've rented, they're breaking the law when they store their music on a hard drive they've purchased. And of course, when I say "hard drive" I mean a "storage device," such as a flash drive or an optical disk. In other news: EMI pushes for a return to vinyl records.

Are ipads / iphones next? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325432)

Are ipads / iphones next?

Re:Are ipads / iphones next? (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331094)

You have the option of legally paying for the song and downloading it from iTunes. Why do you have to be a thief and copy it from your CD?

Re:EMI expands scope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34330016)

But vinyl is a storage device - it stores the analogue waveforms of the sound you want to listen to. So the only way to listen to music then will be at a venue.

Grasping for straws (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325156)

As long as it's not publicly accessible (and therefore promoting infringement), how could they construe storing files on a private location to be illegal? Insanity.

So - storing your own CDs in your house - acceptable. CDs in your car, illegal (because you can play the CDs at various residences)?

Anything to protect that dying model. It would almost be humorous, if it wasn't sad.

Re:Grasping for straws (3, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325398)

Even worse, I rip all CDs I buy to flac. Then if I want to use them on my phone I convert that to a smaller format. I truly am a horrible person.

Re:Grasping for straws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34329074)

Truly you ARE a horrible person.
 
In some jurisdictions you have broken the law several times despite the fact that what you have done is just plain sensible and "normal" in every sense of the word.

Would this affect Usenet? (1)

longtailedhermit (1544819) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325160)

I was wondering what services specifically an unfavorable ruling would affect. Would it affect websites like Pandora or would it harm services like usenet or would it affect file sharing sites?

Re:Would this affect Usenet? (1)

TurtleBay (1942166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325578)

It seems like it could affect GMail and online backup sites, the argument against MP3Tunes is that letting people store their files in online password protected storage is analogous to making illegal copies. It would be crazy if GMail scrubbed all of my attachments or Carbonite checked my online disks to make sure that I didn't have copyrighted materials. This judgement would not affect Pandora or Usenet.

The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (-1, Flamebait)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325176)

I love the EFF. I do. But they're rabidly pro-copying. Or pro-sharing. A friend of mine likes to point out that they get some of their money by the hardware companies which sort of makes sense. The hardware companies don't care about sharing. They don't care about whether the content creators get paid because, well, they still get their money. If anything, they're happy to wink at the copying because every dollar spent on content is a dollar that can't be spent on a new version of a gadget. So while I think it's okay that they're writing friends of a court briefs, I'm sure they're really more like "friends of the cloud manufacturers" or "friends of the Consumer Electronics Ass."

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34325252)

I love the EFF. I do. But they're rabidly pro-copying. Or pro-sharing.

Yes, where it's legal to do so. They do not condone copyright infringement.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (0, Troll)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325658)

I understand your point. I do. They never run up the pirate flag like the Pirate Party in Sweden, but they always seem to be on the side of the copyists. Why just this week they called on the Euro Commission to "protect internet users' rights by requiring a court order." And so you can claim that they're not condone infringement, just defending the users' rights to endless time in court. But what are the users afraid of? Being busted for copyright infringement. This has nothing to do with civil rights or protection from profiling or any of a number of interesting issues. The only reason they want to throw the sand in the gears is to protect the infringers because they're the only ones to worry about ISP takedowns from the current law.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327780)

I'm not sure if you're joking or being serious. That's like saying that ACLU is pro-rape or pro-murder because they'd fight against a bill that allows police to search your home without a warrant. You don't need to keep secrets from the police unless you're a criminal right?

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330352)

No. You miss my point. My point is that the EFF never insists on full legal process when it benefits the content creators, they only push for long legal battles when it will benefit their funders, the hardware companies. The ACLU lost some members when they supported the Nazi marches in Skokie,IL but they fought it was important to support free speech for all. I don't hear the EFF insisting that websites make it easy to file a DMCA form. I don't hear the EFF applying the law equally to both sides. They're just interested in arguing points of law when it benefits the people who pay for their astroturfing, Google and the Consumer Electronics Ass.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

$pace6host (865145) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331458)

The EFF is not exactly swimming in money. In 2008, they actually spent $400K more than they took in. I'm happy that they spend more of their limited resources fighting for individuals than for well-heeled industries already well represented by lobbyists and millions of dollars pumped into political campaigns [opensecrets.org] . I bet Time Warner alone spent more money on lobbying congress in 2010 than the entire EFF budget -- and I picked them because they were at the bottom of the list. I wouldn't be surprised to find that many TV/Movie/Recording industry companies each pay their retained lawyers many times the entire EFF annual budget. And the EFF is fighting on many fronts. So give them a break when they reserve resources to fight for the underrepresented.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333694)

Maybe the reason you don't hear the EFF "Applying the law equally to both sides" is because we haven't seen any law or case yet that benefits "illegal copying" to the detriment of the content creators that wasn't a case of protecting the privacy and due process. Give me an example where they "should" have stepped in to be equal otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.

Insisting that websites make it easy to file a DMCA form makes no sense. There are plenty of locations online that you can find the format and layout for a DMCA form just use google. Then all you do is email/snail mail the form to the contact information for the site. The information of which will either be on the site or you can do a whois lookup. Why would the EFF need to step in and insist on this? It is already easy. In fact, too easy which is why so many wrongly filed DMCA forms get sent.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337726)

Notice how you're using the words "privacy" and "due process". You only see those words applying to the rights of the file sharing community. But what if we spoke about a content creator's right to have a private communication with a customer? The EFF calls that DRM and actively campaigns against it. Or due process? The EFF is only interested in making sure the rules are followed when they help file sharers. They want red tape to impede the content creators from defending their rights. It's easy to come up with scenarios where the EFF could insist upon court orders that would help the content creators. Imagine if the EFF in their role as staunch defenders of rights insisted that every downloader must get a court order certifying that the material is either in the public domain or available with a valid license? Hah. Following a torrent link would require hiring a lawyer to prepare a solid argument. I realize that such an idea seems inconceivable and very inefficient to you, but if the EFF really cared about due process for everyone they would push for more court involvement to check that both sides are being legally correct.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345208)

No one is infringing on the privacy of content creators, nor the due process for them since no one is initiating any proceedings or court cases against them. Therefore your point there is moot.

DRM is not a "private communication" with the customer. There have been DRM systems that the EFF has been ok with. The ones they campaign against are DRM systems that intrude on the rights for someone to legally use something they have purchased. For example, the "always on" DRM that requires you to always have a constant internet connection. Not everyone can always have an internet connection for a single player game to require it is ludicrous. Say I want to play my game on my laptop while in a car, this DRM would prevent me from it. Thus is bad for the consumer.

Imagine if the EFF in their role as staunch defenders of rights insisted that every downloader must get a court order certifying that the material is either in the public domain or available with a valid license? Hah.

What do you mean? In the case of when a content producer is already suing someone? Because when the content producer does sue someone and can prove they actually downloaded it, the EFF does not stand in their way. or do you mean every time someone downloads something they have to have a court order verifying that it is ok for them to download it. That's ridiculous on the face of it because then on top of making the purchase and payment for something online, you have to pay for a court order verifying it? Absurd.

The phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is a staple of the US justice system. Thus, in order for a content creator to 'protect their rights' they must not trample over the rights of consumers. Privacy and due process belong to the consumer who is being attacked. No one is violating the rights of content producers except for the ones who get convicted of the infringement.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34331982)

Part of the courts' job is to make sure that law enforcement play by the rules. If you're going to force the ISPs to enforce laws (by shutting down service), it only makes sense for those laws to be enforced under the supervision of the courts. The usual way to do this is to get a court to review the evidence and decide whether there's enough for law enforcement to procede. They're defending users' rights to not be fucked with by law enforcement without due cause.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337748)

If the EFF were truly fair, they would push for both sides to get the court to review evidence. How about asking the ISPs to require their users to get a court order before following a torrent link? This would protect the users for inadvertently downloading something protected by copyright. It would be a feature for customers if the court could decide a priori whether there's enough legal basis to proceed.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

TurtleBay (1942166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325454)

If anything, they're happy to wink at the copying because every dollar spent on content is a dollar that can't be spent on a new version of a gadget.

It goes much further than a dollar not spent on content a dollar that can be spent on hardware. In a world where copyright material is never shared for free, imagine what the demand would be for 64 GB mp3 players, 1 TB harddisks and media extender boxes. Major sections of the hardware market would go down the tubes when 50 GB of data seems monstrous again like during the pre Napster days.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325568)

Some of us buy DVDs and CDs and rip them. Once Blu-ray is throughly rippable on linux I will start buying those.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328786)

Are they playable yet on Linux? Haven't been following the whole deal very closely

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34335480)

The ones you can rip are. I just am not interested in buying them until it is foolproof.

I only buy what I can rip. They made the choice to delay me buying bluray, they can live with it.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34335602)

I'm waiting till it's foolproof too ;)

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327686)

The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker

Er? This is like saying that the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspapers when they advocate freedom of the press because the newspapers donate to the ACLU and benefit from a free press. I'm pretty sure the EFF would be submitting the same brief regardless of how much money they get from specific donors -- people give them money as a result of their positions, not to get them to change their positions.

Or, to put it a different way, EFF gets plenty of donations from "readers like you" [eff.org] , so to speak. How many non-music-industry-executive/lawyer individuals do you think willingly donate money to the RIAA lobbying & litigation fund? My guess would be somewhere between zero and none.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330392)

And what's wrong with saying that the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspaper biz? My only point is that the EFF isn't some neutral party here. They're a lobbying organization supported by the folks in Silicon Valley who make more money when the content producers get nothing. Look at the list of big donors to the EFF. It's heavy on Google and hardware company execs. It's just another trade organization. This is why the judge may not want to accept their "friend of the court" brief. I'm sure it makes good points. I'm sure it would help offer some depth. But at the end of the day, the lawyers who wrote it are bought and paid for by people who make more money when they cut the content creators out of the loop. So again, the EFF is not a "friend of the court", they're a "friend of the cloud manufacturers" and a "friend of the MP3 makers".

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333778)

If you think the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspaper businesses then you don't know what you're talking about. Contrary to popular belief it is possible for an industry to donate to a good cause without that cause being in the pocket of those donating to it. You're right that the EFF isn't neutral, they have chosen the side of freedom and privacy. They see something that is a violation of privacy and a circumvention of laws that were made to protect and thus file an amicus brief for it. Just because the hardware manufacturers may have an ulterior motive for deciding to donate to the organization does not mean that the EFF doesn't have a good point and doesn't mean they aren't correct and fighting for a cause. If someone donates money to me because they like something I do, it doesn't mean that suddenly I'm doing this for them and not for the cause I was originally pursuing.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337348)

Actually, they've only chosen a narrow definition of freedom and privacy: freedom and privacy for the file sharing community. They never lift a finger to protect the freedom of the content creators to create an efficient and fair marketplace where all users pay equally. There's no evidence that they care at all about the freedom of content creators to try to earn a living. Oh, they babble on and on about supporting copyright laws, but they never intercede to defend the freedom of anyone except the couch potatoes who use words like "privacy" as a shield to defend their inherent cheapness. And privacy? What about the privacy of content creators who want to encrypt their communications with their customers? Hah. The EFF calls that DRM and actively campaigns against it.

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34334188)

And what's wrong with saying that the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspaper biz?

It fails to comprehend what astroturfing is? The ACLU and the EFF are not "trade organizations" by any stretch of the imagination. EFF argues against prosecutors that say violating the terms of service at your company makes you guilty of a computer crime, and voting system manufacturers who make defective voting machines, and governments that violate the Freedom of Information Act, and against government limitations on software like TrueCrypt, on and on. I don't see how that stuff helps Google or "cloud companies" or hardware manufacturers moreso than it helps everybody else, and even if it did in some tenuous way, so what?

What I'm saying is that just because party A benefits from party B's position on an issue and for that reason donates to party B, doesn't mean that party B is controlled by party A. It just means they have shared interests.

Now, if you want to play word games and say things like "they're supported by the folks in Silicon Valley who make more money when the content producers get nothing" so that you can disingenuously imply that the reason they advocate individual freedom is because they've sold their principles for a check from corporations rather than getting a check from corporations who benefit from individual freedom, you can be that guy. But you should at least try to get a working premise: If content producers "get nothing", and (as Hollywood tells us) they won't as a result make as much or as good content, that doesn't help hardware makers. People don't need as many drives to fill with new movies if there are fewer new movies people want to watch. The hardware companies, then, have a very close proximity the constitution's (and hence the court's) position: Balance copyright so that you get a) the largest amount of good new content b) into the hands of the largest number of people.

Also: If you don't think the EFF is a "friend of the court", then who is? By your logic anyone advocating a policy position is a lobbying group who should be barred, but no one without anything to say is going to have any reason to write a brief. Or is it just your position that we should eliminate all third party briefs?

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34337404)

You may think they're not a trade organization, but I that's only because you're drinking the Kool Aid. I'm just pointing out that they're heavily funded by people who want them to support a set of principles that heavily favor a few industries and hurt their rivals. It's no big surprise that they've found each other. That's how business is done. Now it's true that there are some fairly independent people online who may also support them, but that doesn't change the fundamental economics. There are gun lovers who are also fairly independent, but I think it's fair to see the NRA as a mouthpiece for the gun industry. Courts make odd decisions about when they accept amicus brief. As I've said again and again, I'm sure the EFF will contribute solid and well thought out ideas, but I can also see why the court may reject them. Why bother getting someone who is so biased toward one side of the case? Let the counsel for that side articulate the issues.

Copyright law needs revising (2, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325198)

...from the bottom up. Simply put, the extant laws and the interpretations thereof are no longer valid for the changes that digitization have brought on. This revision has been needed for many years now, and the record industry's insistence on maintaining outmoded and obselete restrictions is a direct result of their inability to innovate a way to make a profit outside of their old model.

I see no reason why the *AA should stifle creative expression because they're unable to continue making a profit on buggy whips.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (2, Insightful)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325724)

I agree that copyright law needs revising, but I have yet to see someone suggest a decent alternative that benefits both the consumer AND the producer of the consumed good.

Remember, despite all their flaws, the copyright laws we have today did and still do serve a purpose. They keep people from stealing ideas. They work wonderfully for solid non-digital things, like the thousands of goods we buy in stores-its only when we try to apply them to electronic data and ideas that we start having problems.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (3, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325876)

The concept of "stealing ideas" is flawed. Ideas occur independently and simultaneously to many people when the conditions for that idea are right. And virtually every copyrighted work is derivative... can anybody cite a single movie Disney ever published that was based entirely on original characters and story line? Copyright monopolists have argued that libraries should be illegal, audio tape should be illegal, and videotape should be illegal. Now they are arguing that cloud storage of data should be illegal. I expect this argument to have much the same result as the previous ones.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

BBrown (70466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326042)

There is nothing in copyright law that prevents two people from independently copyrighting ideas they have written down. It doesn't even have to be simultaneous; just independent and without obvious copying or access.

You may be confusing copyright with patent.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326424)

Actually, the whole of human understanding is inter-related ideas. No idea can stand in isolation from any other. However, reality has little bearing on how the judiciary process works. In fact, an argument could be made that it can function in the absence of any grounding in reality. For that matter, the same can be said of society in general. One of the cornerstones of our society is the idea we can own land. We have entirely artificial barriers that we've interposed between ourselves and our physical environment. I cannot walk outside, point to a random spot on the ground, and prove a relationship between it and anyone else based on what my senses tell me. Nonetheless, this artificial social construct of land ownership is an intrinsic part of our daily lives. Society would not function without it. I couldn't force you to leave "my" home if you were not welcome, businesses could not develop the land because the next day somebody else might come and knock down their building, etc. Land ownership, however artificial, does serve a purpose.

Intellectual property too has become an intrinsic part of our daily lives -- and it is also as artificial of a social construct as land ownership. And the courts' job is to uphold social constructs and maintain the status quo... not debate the merits of said constructs.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (0)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34328352)

We should copyright copyrighting, then no one else will be able to do it.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (3, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326138)

> They keep people from stealing ideas.

How do you "steal" an intangible??

To quote a famous insight...
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

The concept of Imaginary Property is absurd to begin with ... I have a sequence of numbers, yet somehow magically it is "owned" by someone else because it just so happens these numbers represent the frequencies of Happy Birthday. EMI can go fuck themselves.

Copyright is eventually going away in a few hundred years, whether they like it or not, and maybe we can get onto more important things instead of arguing over who "owns" what particular sequence of numbers.

The Fashion Industry has no copyright at all yet it still "magically" makes money ...
http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/25/lessons_from_fa/ [ted.com]

--
"Resistance of the Future is Childish"

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330062)

The Fashion Industry has no copyright at all yet it still "magically" makes money ...

That's because they are very hot on trademarks/branding. Try copying a Chanel bag and selling it as Channel and see how far you get.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333844)

Try selling an exact replica of the Chanel bag and giving it a different name and it will still sell very well and make money. Especially if you make it cheaper since they are not paying for the brand name. However, this will not eat into the profits of Chanel. Thus, a perfect example where copyright is unnecessary. A model that others should follow.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (3, Informative)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327094)

I agree that copyright law needs revising, but I have yet to see someone suggest a decent alternative that benefits both the consumer AND the producer of the consumed good.

A strong case can be made that copyright is just not working for its intended purpose.

Consider that the US Government alone spends 20+ billion dollars a year on pure science and scholarly research. And that copyright actually stifles the movement of the ideas these dollars are supposed to promote.

20+ billion dollars is worth 2000+ 100 million dollar movies. Hollywood doesn't make that many. If we're being generous, they spend about 3 billion on 300 "blockbusters".

17+ billion dollars is worth 17000 1M dollar (to produce!) albums. I only know of one "one million dollar album" (I'm sure there are a few out there...). But realistically, call it 170000 "100 thousand dollar albums". The music labels do not make 170000 albums in a year. Let's call it... 3000 albums a year. That's another billion dollars.

We have 14+ billion left. Television costs about 1000$ a minute to produce. That means that the remaining science budget is worth about 14000000 minutes of television. That's worth about 26.61 years of television, produced every year. How much of what is on cable is a re-run? How much is pretty much worthless after it first airs -- (Like the news)? The figures I've seen suggest that about 1.3 billion dollars were spent on producing new television in 2006. Lets call it 2 billion today.

We still have 12+ billion left. How many books is that worth? Writers are notoriously poorly paid, at about 5c a word. Lets triple that, to pay editors and publishers' administrative staff. That comes to 80 BILLION words a year. An average book is about 120,000 words, which means that the remaining science budget comes to 2 million books a year. Publishers don't put out anywhere near that many books, and a large number of the books they do put out is paid for out of the science budget anyway. Let's call it 100,000 books a year. That's 1.8 billion dollars a year.

We still have 10+ billion dollars left in the science budget. Of course, there are many other kinds of productions. And yet, these largest four or five dwarf them.

Clearly, science costs DWARF the entertainment industry's production costs. And yet we are tying the hands of the people we have chosen to promote for the sake of the minority, few of which have anything to do with "useful arts and sciences" anyway.

Copyright is rent seeking, and should be abolished (or at least curtailed) as such.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330726)

20+ billion dollars is worth 2000+ 100 million dollar movies.

You fail by an order of magnitude. Two thousand times $100M is 200 billion dollars. (This leads to a critical failure in the rest of your argument, I'm sorry to say, despite my wanting to agree with it.)

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34330934)

And all the government funded science in the world doesn't give you one piece of music that touches your soul, one piece of art which moves you, or one story you'll never forget.

Government funding certainly has its place, it allows for the creation of ideas which won't be profitable for decades if ever. The internet would not exist if it had been left to private enterprise. That doesn't mean that science is everything that copyright is designed to promote, or that we'd be better off without it.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34333526)

And all the government funded science in the world doesn't give you one piece of music that touches your soul, one piece of art which moves you, or one story you'll never forget.

And? I didn't say that the private entertainment industry should be abolished. All I said is that their rent seeking should be abolished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking [wikipedia.org]

Government funding certainly has its place, it allows for the creation of ideas which won't be profitable for decades if ever.

That is also the point of copyrights. But that is not what copyright represents, any longer. 70 years past the death of the author is clearly rent seeking. If you can't turn a profit on an investment by the time you are dead, you probably should not make that investment. There are exceptions to this general rule, but they are few and far between, and investing in them is potentially one of the government's roles.

Also note that government funding represents a fraction of what is spent on pure and applied science in America. Science suffers for the sake of a smaller (and less valuable, in real dollar terms -- the terms your Congressman will understand and care about) industry.

The internet would not exist if it had been left to private enterprise. That doesn't mean that science is everything that copyright is designed to promote, or that we'd be better off without it.

Rent seeking is bad, okay? Rent seekers don't want to have to work for a living. They want to recycle the same old movies, games, songs, books. And charge you through the nose for them. It was "bad enough", but tolerable, when they had a ~25 year monopoly. That gave them ~25 years to recoup their costs and turn a profit on a creative work. It is now 70 years after the death of the author. Or up to 120 years for works of "corporate authorship".

You see, in a competitive market, profits tend to zero. Which is why we all hate competitive markets. We all want the government to carve up the market so that it suits us. The entertainment industry has done this quite successfully. They have created a situation where they have a large amount of "scarcity rent". Without their scarcity rent, their profits would tend to zero in the long run, just like every competitive industry. Instead, they consistently post profits. This is a distortion of the market. I am willing to concede that some amount of scarcity rent is necessary to ensure that an entertainment business can remain solvent. But solvency is the most anybody should hope for in a competitive market.

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34329088)

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Copyright law needs revising (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34336312)

I agree that copyright law needs revising, but I have yet to see someone suggest a decent alternative that benefits both the consumer AND the producer of the consumed good.

That's because no such proposal can do so. It's not zero sum, but the producers have to give somewhat for consumers to get anything. Instead, they've been squeezing the last drops out of the consumer.

Remember, despite all their flaws, the copyright laws we have today did and still do serve a purpose.

Sure. Whether it's a purpose which needs serving is a different matter.

They keep people from stealing ideas.

Really? Because US copyright law explicitly disclaims coverage of ideas.

They work wonderfully for solid non-digital things, like the thousands of goods we buy in stores

No, they don't. Mostly they don't apply, and where they apply, they are broken.

length of amicus curiae brief (3, Informative)

euphemistic (1850880) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325234)

32 whole pages including cover page, table of contents and submission credits at 1.5 line spacing? And people accuse Gen Y of having a short attention span... I'd have to agree that EMI are scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons.

Teal Deers (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 2 years ago | (#34325312)

EMI's argument is, in part, that the EFF brief is tl;dr? Sounds like they're getting into internet culture after all.

Self Ownage (2, Insightful)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325406)

If I were a judge here, and were talked out of reading a FOTC letter, I'd just be more interested in reading it.
Weather forecast for the upcoming years: Increase of music in the troposphere.

Netizens Unite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34325428)

No, I did not RTFA but it sounds like a few thousand netizens submitting sufficiently detailed Friend-of-the-court briefs would be more enough to tie this thing up until the whole cloud-computing frenzy dies down...

No actual news here... (1, Flamebait)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325552)

... just some boring pre-trial lawyering...

Note to EMI (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34325822)

You might want to try googling the phrase "Streisand Effect"! Much like censored books and records enjoy greater sales, any brief you object to just gets a lot more interesting...

[semi-sarcasm] Isn't it just a license anyway ... (3, Insightful)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326110)

So why does it matter where it is stored, who stores it, blah blah blah.

If all I have purchased from the record companies is a license to the music, then isn't all that matters is that the person accessing the cloud has a license? Doesn't that license entitle me to certain listening rights.

Or to put it another way, isn't MP3Tunes.com responsible for doing nothing else beyond ensuring I have a license for the music they are serving me? Isn't a reasonable method for discerning that fact my ability to upload a copy of that music?

There are two scenarios: either I uploaded a licensed version so now STFU. Or it is an unlicensed version and as such MP3Tunes still isn't facilitating since they aren't the ones that gave me the unlicensed version in the first place and oh yeah BTW I already have an unlicensed copy so the battle is lost. No one else is "getting" that unlicensed version since the only reason they even have access via the cloud is because they already uploaded a licensed version or [drum roll please] they already are in possession of, and uploaded, an unlicensed version.

Re:[semi-sarcasm] Isn't it just a license anyway . (2, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34326440)

If all I have purchased from the record companies is a license to the music, then isn't all that matters is that the person accessing the cloud has a license? Doesn't that license entitle me to certain listening rights.

That's why this thing is so screwed up. Hardware manufacturers sell a product. Software manufacturers sell a license. The RIAA/MPAA have deluded themselves (and gotten a bunch of laws passed supporting them) that they are selling something which isn't quite a product and isn't quite a license. By their terms, in any case where it being a product would benefit you (able to play it at parties, make backups of it, etc), they want to treat it like a license. But any case where it being a license would benefit you (discounted format upgrades, free replacement for destroyed media, making copies for your home stereo, MP3 player, computer, and car, etc), they want to treat it like a product.

Re:[semi-sarcasm] Isn't it just a license anyway . (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34331084)

OH yes, make no mistake none of that is lost on me. I suppose my point is, make them choke on it >;-)

What is EMI smoking? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34327106)

EMI says says the brief . . . should be barred because it is "a pure advocacy piece", not a 'friend of the court'

Amicus Curiae does not mean impartial. It never has. Amicus curiae briefs may come from organizations who have an interest in the outcome of the decision or not. From wikipedia: "An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it." In its brief, the EFF (and other organizations) pointed out how flaws in EMI's arguments and how a win by EMI would be counter to what Congress intended.

and would "prejudice" EMI

Again, a party filing a brief is under no obligation to support EMI.

"contains unsupported speculation that is not helpful to the Court."

That is for the court to decide. What EMI means is that the brief would not be helpful to them.

EMI is going to lose. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34327196)

DMCA is explicit in its language under this subject. The person who uploads the music is at fault, not the service that hosts it, not the ISP that transports it, or anyone else.
The only exception to this is if the provider (MP3Tunes) refuses to accept DMCA take down notices, and go through the proper channels. This is why Google isn't ripped to shreds with youtube.

So as long as:
1) MP3Tunes did not upload the music itself.
2) MP3Tunes followed DMCA take down notices.

then EMI has no chance of winning this court case.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?