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!

Victory For Music Locker Services?

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the save-those-redundant-bits dept.

The Media 51

Joining the ranks of accepted submitters, Gaygirlie writes "Michael Robertson, the owner and founder of the MP3Tunes music locker service, has been locked in a copyright infringement case with EMI Records for a while now, especially because of the Sideloading search engine that is tacked along with the locker service. Now the case has been resolved though: EMI Records won. But lost on all the accounts that actually really matter." The important parts here are that MP3Tunes was granted safe harbor protection under the DMCA, and that merging multiple copies of the same file doesn't make distributing that master copy a public performance.

cancel ×

51 comments

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

MP3tunes is a pretty cool service (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182452)

Their DAR.fm thing is also neat.

I hope this means they'll be able to ramp up the service now, as their support sucks.

Gaygirlie!? (0)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183232)

Salutations, fat charming one [slashdot.org] from the Young Mutt of the Three Sexualities [slashdot.org] . Cheers!

Re:Gaygirlie!? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183828)

Salutations, though I don't get your reference or why you're saluting me.. o_o

Wait, what? (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182454)

Judge Pauley soundly rejected that line of reasoning, writing that "MP3tunes does not use a 'master copy' to store or play back songs stored in its lockers. Instead, MP3tunes uses a standard data compression algorithm that eliminates redundant digital data."

That sounds awfully clueful for a jurist... he even used the the word "algorithm" correctly.

What country was this in, again?

Re:Wait, what? (1, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182794)

It wasn't a jurist; it was the Judge. However, your skepticism still seems relevant...

Re:Wait, what? (5, Informative)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182828)

It wasn't a jurist; it was the Judge. However, your skepticism still seems relevant...

A judge is a jurist (but not a juror, which is probably the word you were thinking of).

Re:Wait, what? (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185098)

hey as long as he doesn't exclaim that he is the law and shoot you with a "double whammy"...

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37182934)

Yeah, really. I mean, everybody knows that federal judges are slack-jawed morons, at least 90 years old, with an IQ in the low 40's.

I'm guessing the average federal judge is a whole lot more clued-in (and more importantly, a whole lot more capable of being clued-in) than the average 'I am so much smarter than everyone else, and only my opinions are correct' type that makes stupid posts like yours.

Re:Wait, what? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183528)

His misunderstanding comes from Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It's easy to mistake the behavior of federal judges as stupid based on that rule. Of course, they can't be stupid because law school is hard. Therefore stupidity is an inadequate explanation. The implications of this are left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37183782)

Not at all. In a roundabout way, he is making the same claims you see from a lot of people on here: if a judge makes a decision I don't agree with, it means either the judge is stupid or corrupt. You know, the same stupid position you are taking. If, instead of incorrectly applying Hanlon's razor you would apply Occam's razor, you would come to the correct answer. That is, the judge did not arrive at the incorrect answer, the person doing the complaining did. Then, you can correctly apply Hanlon's razor to their position.

Judges opinions are usually written out, clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc). On the other hand, the complainers generally provide no support at all as to where the judge made an error, only lots of hand-waving and general charges of corruption and stupidity.

None of this means that judges can't err or be on the take, of course they can. But most of the time they get it correct, even when it goes against what some people wish.

Re:Wait, what? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184738)

Judges opinions are usually written out, clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc).

Judges are selected from lawyers, whose entire professional carreer is spent disregarding right and wrong, and true and false. Their entire skillset revolves around making any argument they can, no matter how disingenuous, in order to prove their point. Is it any suprise that judges are able to come up with elaborate rationalizations for their opinions?

If a judge told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37187758)

That is, the judge did not arrive at the incorrect answer, the person doing the complaining did.

Those judges are always correct.

clearly showing how they arrived at the decision (precedents, etc).

I don't see how that means that they are correct.

But most of the time they get it correct

I don't see any hard evidence of this. Nor do I think that it is relevant.

even when it goes against what some people wish.

Then those people will probably say that the judge is incorrect. That would be their opinion. And they're not necessarily wrong.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#37192570)

Actually, I never used the word 'stupid,' in spite of what the AC mob seems to want to drool about. I said 'clueful.' How many times has been said that the law 'has trouble keeping up with technology?' That's what I was going at.

Funny how the AC asshats don't seem to get their panties in a bunch when someone comments about congress making dumbshit laws in the first place, but point out how someone on the bench did a good thing by not keeping that up, and they fall all over themselves screaming like a bunch of lead-eaters.

Re:Wait, what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37182940)

That sounds awfully clueful for a jurist... he even used the the word "algorithm" correctly.

Why wouldn't they? Algorithms are not limited to dweeb programmers. It's a concept taught to all 12 year old kids in mathematics. Perhaps you were being too sanctimonious at the time to notice?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#37192482)

It wasn't when I was 12, and I was assuming that the judge is older than I am (though every year it becomes easier to make that assumption in error).

Re:Wait, what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37183540)

HURR HURR I R SO SMRAT AND TEH JUGDES ARE SO STOOPID! I HAZ IQ OF 323 AND I R SMRATER TAHN OLBERT EINSTIN!

Seriously, judges are jurors are way more informed on things than pompous jackasses like yourself would ever imagine to think.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 3 years ago | (#37195278)

judges are jurors are way more informed

judges = jurors = INFORM + 10; ?

Victory? No (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182460)

Inconclusive at best.. The lawyers can milk this for a while longer

Re:Victory? No (3, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182540)

Inconclusive at best.. The lawyers can milk this for a while longer

If you'd actually read the whole thing you'd see that this is a clear victory: the Judge clearly ruled that these locker services do not need to buy licensing from record companies, they don't need to police the files of the users unless someone files a DMCA takedown request against a specific file.. How is this NOT a huge victory?

Re:Victory? No (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182602)

Conclusion

It's not clear where the ruling leaves MP3tunes.

Re:Victory? No (3, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182660)

Conclusion

It's not clear where the ruling leaves MP3tunes.

That's relating to the fact that MP3Tunes had not removed the files for which DMCA takedown notices were filed and the files that Robertson himself had uploaded there. Ie. a completely DIFFERENT ISSUE.

Re:Victory? No (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183082)

Yeah, I take it to be basically a two-part decision: 1) if you run a music locker service in a non-stupid way, you are legally safe; and 2) MP3Tunes failed to run theirs in a non-stupid way. So for everyone else, #1 is still good precedent, assuming they don't do something absurd like have the founder himself upload and post public links to "privately" stored music he doesn't own the rights to.

Re:Victory? No (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183282)

Your opinion is based on speculation.. Wait until the appeals have been made and the fat lady gets her royalties.

Re:Victory? No (2)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182696)

How is this NOT a huge victory?

Because it's only a skirmish. From the article: "So if Judge Pauley's reasoning survives appeal, [companies doing, or potentially doing, similar things to mp3tunes] will be on solid legal ground." That's a big if—record companies have deep pockets.

Re:Victory? No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37183078)

and the companies with locker services like mp3tunes don't have much money at all, right? I mean, google or amazon certainly wouldn't be interested in making sure this ruling keeps standing, since it wouldn't possibly save them money in the long run.

Re:Victory? No (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183178)

Google and Amazon would of course love to see this stand, but they can't do anything in this case, since they're not involved; they lack standing.

Re:Victory? No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37183594)

They are certainly capable of funding the defense.

Re:Victory? No (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183694)

Are they? Couldn't that be construed as collusion?

Re:Victory? No (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183890)

How is funding someone's defense fraudulent or illegal?

Re:Victory? No (2)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185642)

Isn't that what amicus curiae briefs are for?

Re:Victory? No (1)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185852)

I thought those were for when the court is down and troubled and needs a helping hand.

Re:Victory? No (1)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 3 years ago | (#37189434)

Amicus Curiae

Funding defence, which is perfectly legal.

Re:Victory? No (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 3 years ago | (#37195342)

Yeah, because it's unthinkable that you don't appeal if the judgement comes out against you. Stupid litigious bastard society.

Re:Victory? No (3, Interesting)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183874)

How is this NOT a huge victory?

From the point of view of mp3tunes, this decision is not a huge victory because it's liable for at least hundreds, if not thousands, of separate acts of copyright infringement (the decision is surprisingly imprecise as to exactly how many acts of infringement mp3tunes is liable for). If EMI chooses to have statutory (as opposed to actual) damages awarded, then mp3tunes is on the hook for between $750 to $150,000 per infringement (to be decided by the judge or a jury if EMI demands it). If somehow EMI is awarded the max statutory damages (unlikely but possible), that's 15 million dollars for every 100 songs infringed; EMI is claiming 3189 songs are at issue - if that's right, then mp3tunes max liability is $478,350,000 - half a billion dollars.

It's also not a huge victory for mp3tunes because there are a number of unresolved issues - including whether it's founder Michael Robertson is personally liable for songs he personally added to the mp3tunes service. Unreolved issues will go through more litigation, including possibly an actual trial. That, of course, is expensive and sucks for mp3tunes.

From the point of view of the public, google, and amazon, this is great, for all the reasons you mentioned.

Cue the Village People (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37182598)

It's fun to violate the
D-M-C-A

It's fun to violate the
D-M-C-A

Re:Cue the Village People (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184006)

Until you get violated by the
R-I-A-A

Gaygirlie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37182746)

How come homosexuals get to constantly get to broadcast their sexual orientation all the damn time? Typical reverse discrimination that runs rampant these days.

Re:Gaygirlie (3, Insightful)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182858)

How come homosexuals get to constantly get to broadcast their sexual orientation all the damn time? Typical reverse discrimination that runs rampant these days.

I know! It's terrible that they can just run around offending everyone by being themselves while those poor straight people have to skulk around, being careful about displaying affection in public lest they risk hostility and possibly even violence. Something must be done!

Re:Gaygirlie (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37183000)

Of course, this being Slashdot, it's also equally plausible that she's

  • a straight girl who just doesn't feel like being hit on by creepy fat guys who live in their moms' basements
  • not a girl
  • a specialized Eliza implementation

Re:Gaygirlie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37189722)

Re: 1) I fail to see how claiming to be a homosexual female would reduce the chance of being hit on by creepy fat guys who live in their moms' basements...

Re:Gaygirlie (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183034)

No one's stopping you from registering 'straightdude'. I do think it's a little annoying that they seem to think their sexual orientation is relevant in many context where it is not. But that's not reverse orientation, you're free to act as annoying as they do if you want.

Re:Gaygirlie (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183628)

It's a visibility issue. Because we don't have the benefits and drawbacks of being visible by default we're constantly having to bring it up as appropriate in order to remain out. Coming out is a constant process.

When straight people do it, it's just plain obnoxious, since the vast majority of folks are straight, it's mostly a matter of emphasizing what a bigoted jerk one is.

Re:Gaygirlie (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#37187976)

When straight people do it, it's just plain obnoxious

-
Ok, world:

I admit it. I'm straight.

I've had my innocent childhood curiosity forays with my male peers. I've had openly gay friends as an adult. And girls are just better. Better enough that I don't care about the other gender, at all: They're just not attractive like that. I've tried to keep an open mind, and at times in my teenage years I might've wished to be gay to avoid all of the pain wrought by teenaged girls, but it just doesn't work.

I'm straight as an arrow. Despite my occasional viewing of Thai ladyboy porn, I'm straight. (The ladyboys aren't really men, anyway, but just some mentally-twisted halfbreed that I sometimes find entertaining to watch. When I am rich and famous, I intend to hire one full-time as a "personal trainer", just to go along with the wife's persistence on having a "pool boy" on staff (whether or not we actually own a pool). I'm sure there will be drinking and Lulz and weird gratification for all.)

Just so you all know. And so there's nothing to be confused about.
-

Yeah, you're right. Even when you're (at best) 90% straight, declaring oneself as such does seem pretty obnoxious.

Re:Gaygirlie (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183138)

I am unaware of anything stopping you from registering an account "straightguy" or "nohomogirl"

It isn't so much a matter of "getting to", whats stopping you from doing it? I flaunt mine all the time, whenever my wife and I walk down the street, I hold her hand. I have been known to wear a shirt that says "I may not be Mr Right, but I will fuck you until he gets here".... I guess that could be orientation (if not sex) neutral.

As to why its done, I think its an identity thing. Straight is "normal", there is way more of us. So if I call myself "straight steve" well.... my name "Steve" does more to identify me as a unique individual in most crowds than "straight". Whereas gay people make up only about 10% of the population, so its a much stronger identifier. As such, I think gay people are more likely to identify with it...whereas I am more likely to be set apart by some other aspect of my interests.

Also, it means that, with the 1 in 10 odds working against them, broadcasting makes it easier to find others who are similar, which is important for a number of reasons, including dating. When 9 out of 10 of the people that interest you are unavailable to you, before you even start to factor in who is or isn't in a relationship already.... it makes a lot more sense to want to raise up a flag, so to speak.

Now, there is a darker side to this. Let us not forget that, just a generation ago we had a strong "coming out" movement, which was a reaction to social problems.

But by all means, identify publicly as straight if you feel you feel that will help you in some way.

Re:Gaygirlie (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183664)

That's more or less precisely it. The rules about what is an isn't appropriate in public ought to be the same regardless of who it is unless there's a damn good reason. And a bunch of prudes and bigots not wanting to see is hardly a valid reason.

At the end of the day for those that find this to be offensive the best way to end the practice is by ensuring that it's not a big deal. But in general I don't think that's going to happen as it's not generally the real problem that they're whining about.

Time for a new law! (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37182930)

Looks like the RIAA will be shopping for a new law. Any legislators or political party in need of funding? I think I know where your next "donation" is coming from.

Great (1)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183268)

Does this mean my MP3.com t-shirt from 1998 is back in style again?

Re:Great (1)

vmxeo (173325) | more than 3 years ago | (#37183392)

Only if you wear it in an ironic, hipster fashion.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184922)

No, he specifically asked if it's "in style". Therefore, if he, specifically, wears it, it'll stop being ironic and the hipsters will disown it. Instantly. Going shirtless if need be.

That's why my music career failed (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186018)

I rested all my hopes and futures on my one hit song "Bootleg Rum and the Red Flag Pirate" Little did I know they were forbidden words.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?