MP3.com Sued for 'viral' Copyright Infringement? 386
Are We Afraid writes "Apparently the RIAA isn't the only one looking to make money off of MP3.com. They have just been sued by a group of independent artists for, get this, "viral copyright infringement". What does that even mean???" They claim that people who downloaded MP3s from mp3.com contributed them to napster, so MP3.com owes them. It's really bizarre.
MP3.COM (Score:2, Funny)
what did they expect. (Score:4, Funny)
I guess they should have used SDMI or something, oh wait, that wouldn't work either.
Why stop there, more money to be had (Score:1, Funny)
Hey, while the Tobacco litigations involved sheep that had no will power and wanted others to pay for their mistakes (often even when they were told or could have read that it was bad for them), I think that end users that had any accounts banned or otherwise suffered any physical or emotional trauma from using MP3's should jump on this bandwagon too! Yeeeeeehaaaaa! Make money the new way... steal it legally!
Viral copyright infringement (Score:2, Funny)
Add Honda to the "viral infringment" list (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA will soon insist that car manufactures locked windows in the upright positions when music is being played unless it comes from a royalty-paying souce.
On a side note...this is why you NEVER EVER settle a case out of court. MP3.Com settled and has been taking up the ass ever since (insert obligatory goatse reference). The newest game in the music industry is to flaggelate the expired equinine. Napster is still fighting. And really, if they do lose, could they possibly any worse off than MP3.Com?
- JoeShmoe
Re:I Want a List... (Score:1, Funny)
Neither is RANDOM CAPITALIZATION.