Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Capitol Records Flooded Internet With MP3s, Says MP3Tunes CEO 168

Posted by timothy
from the how-much-carrot-how-much-stick dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Capitol Records Flooded Internet With MP3s, Says MP3Tunes CEO

Comments Filter:
  • by NecroPuppy (222648) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:31PM (#26285847) Homepage

    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?

    • by Phoenix Rising (28955) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:33PM (#26285877) Homepage

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • by Zordak (123132)
          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).
          • by russotto (537200)

            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.

          • by profplump (309017)

            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 d

            • by poetmatt (793785)

              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.

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          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.

          • by arth1 (260657)

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

            According to the summary, it's not Capitol bitching, it's MP3Tunes.

          • 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.

            If that were true for copyrighted work, wouldn't that make the GPL (and really any distribution license) completely unenforceable?

        • by mpe (36238)
          Maybe "free" isn't considered a sale...

          AFAIK there is no special exemption for something being "free". Regardless of if it's "buy one get one free", "free with...", "all you can eat" or even "given away". If this was possible sellers would soon be finding ways to abuse such exemptions.
      • by lmnfrs (829146) <lmnfrs&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:02PM (#26286165) Journal

        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.

        • by GiMP (10923) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:34PM (#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...

          • 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...

            Well, Starbucks may be a "Fair Trade" company and all that, but some of their business practices need a closer look, I think.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          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.

          Being anti-competitive is not enough, you have to be effectively locking your competitors out from the market, not only the specific venues of sale. In general, there's no requirement that say Apple stores should carry non-Apple computers or that a mall should carry alternative coffee shops. If it's not required, you can usually agree by contract not to. I think it would take a rather extreme monopoly to change that, as it's easily argued that if you wanted different goods you could get them right outside t

        • by CODiNE (27417)

          Malls sometimes have weird rules in place to regulate competition among their leasers. For example when I was a kid the mall by my house had a magazine/newspaper store and upstairs a baseball cards / comics shop. Officially it was a baseball card shop, and the comics were kept in a limited area in the back of the shop. I asked the owner why they didn't have more comics there and he explained that since they were within ____ feet of the magazine shop they weren't allowed to have the comics use up more tha

        • 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.

          The difference is, that the landlord owns the mall. The real racket begins when governments start implementing those measures. In the city of San Francisco for instance, the demand for taxi cabs is so high, that taxi cab drivers make more money not working and just renting out their cab medallions to the taxi cab companies that don't have any. Now in New York, a

      • by tgd (2822)

        Sorry, you're quite incorrect.

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

    • by Rinisari (521266) *

      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.

      • by BrianRoach (614397) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:42PM (#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.

        • by corsec67 (627446)

          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.

        • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:11PM (#26286233) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • 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...
          • by bwcbwc (601780)

            (IANAL) Don't necessarily have to show a full value of damages for copyright violation. Damages for copyright violation of registered works are calculated by statutory formula rather than actual damages. The $220k verdict that was recently overturned by the judge is an example of a statutory damage award.

            The overrule was not because the damages were deemed unfair for a genuine case of copyright violation, but because the judge decided that "making available" was not a valid definition of a copyright violat

          • 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.

            Ah, but that would be a tort for conversion or unfair competition... This one is copyright violation, which has statutory damages without even needing to show damages. Incidentally, this is where we get those $155k per song statutory damages.

        • by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:35PM (#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.
          • 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?
        • by Sloppy (14984) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:42PM (#26286491) Homepage Journal

          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.

        • by fermion (181285)
          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 underst

        • by nabsltd (1313397)

          Distribution (in copyright terms) means that you cause another copy to come into existence.

          So, when you download an MP3 from a site authorized by Capitol to distribute it for free, are you creating the copy, or is the site? I suspect that it would have to be the site, otherwise it would be unauthorized distribution.

          So, then if you download the same MP3 1000 times, you still have not done any "distribution", but you now have 1000 legal copies, since you obtained them from a party authorized to distribute th

    • by taco8982 (725292) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:05PM (#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.
      • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:11PM (#26286241) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • by Gr8Apes (679165)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sjames (1099)

      IANL but I think the idea here is that you can't really claim to have been grievously harmed if someone hands out free copies of a song you're already handing out for free. It could even be argued that they saved you some bandwidth charges.

    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      Since when does ownership give you any rights?

      Just think DRM.

  • Here we go..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:37PM (#26285927) Journal

    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.

  • More nonsense (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:40PM (#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.
    • Even if he's "a scumbag" that doesn't mean that EMI are angels. Sometimes there aren't any good guys.

      • by irtza (893217) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:15PM (#26286279) Homepage
        In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.
        • by rhizome (115711)

          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.

        • by Kjella (173770)

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

          I think you'd do better trying to explain every concept from selfishness. I'm of the opinion that certain people should die, but rather that I'd not want to deal with everyone that would want me dead. Likewise a concept like property, who wouldn't want free swag? The problem would be keeping everyone else from stealing my swag. The reason copyright is in trouble is that very few need copyright, while most people would gain if copyright disappeared. It's like taxes for the rich, it's fine because the rich ar

        • by bwcbwc (601780)

          Well, not necessarily. Evil fighting evil for worldly power is the normal state of affairs.

          One reason for separation of powers in the US constitution and the adversarial construction of our courts is to provide a mechanism for greedy scumbags to rat each other out. The founders recognized that in every corrupt scheme there comes a point where some of the criminals either get scared of getting caught or decide that it's more profitable to turn their ex-partners in.

    • Re:More nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PCM2 (4486) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:04PM (#26286177) Homepage

      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.

  • by BrianRoach (614397) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:47PM (#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

    • by argent (18001)

      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 "copyi

      • 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 f

        • by argent (18001)

          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Roskolnikov (68772)

      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 a

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:06PM (#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.

    • by Dunbal (464142)

      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.

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:52PM (#26286067) Homepage Journal

    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)

  • by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @05:58PM (#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]

  • by Roskolnikov (68772) on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @06:21PM (#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.

  • 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 o

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

  • Ray, love your work. But NoScript was blocking 4 scripts on that pdf link. Does ABP and NoScript hurt your revenue projections for ads? Just curious.
  • I am not a lawyer, but I have been watching the Internet for several decades now. I am somewhat well versed in computer security though. I do remember that if you contact a computer system without permission, there can be consequences. Now we all know that putting files on servers in an unsecured fashion can lead to the files getting loose, and someone could say in court that you did not try to protect you proprietary materials, so you may not have cared. An example was when the source code of the voting ma

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard

Working...