Capitol Records Flooded Internet With MP3s, Says MP3Tunes CEO 168
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In court papers filed in New York in Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the CEO of MP3Tunes, Michael Robertson, has accused the plaintiffs EMI, Capitol Records, and other EMI record labels of flooding the internet with free MP3s of their songs for promotional purposes, 'free to everyone (except, apparently, MP3tunes).' His 10-page declaration (PDF) provides exact details of specific song files, including the URLs from which they are being distributed free of charge, both by paid content distributors, and by EMI itself from its own web sites."
What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't the songs EMI / Capitol's to do with as they wish?
Including give them away, by whatever methods they choose?
Obviously, I'm missing a legal facet here; what is it?
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, you've got it right.
If Capitol Records holds the Copyright, then they can do whatever they want and still control the distribution channel.
First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it doesn't. 17 USC 117(a) applies to computer programs only, not music. Even the RIAA hasn't tried to play that card, however.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Would never work.
All you have to do is copy the data as it is unscrambled or as it is read in the first place - make an outfile as you run the stuff and the copying is complete. That is so easily done that I learned how to do it in Pascal for exe files back in highschool!
Not trying to be ad hominem, just saying that such an idea is simply not feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct in assuming that right of first sale still applies, which is the issue here.
If you give something away for free, you no longer technically own it. It's impossible to prove ownership and also impossible to claim it. As it is intangible it makes it ever more difficult.
This is just Capital bitching that they don't have their hand in the pot even though they already took their hand out intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary, it's not Capitol bitching, it's MP3Tunes.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is on +2 Funny which is a good enough label for me to believe he is funny...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Didn't you read this? [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (Score:5, Interesting)
and yet every label knows that 99% of the promo CDs they send out will just end up in the used bin at local record shops.
we try our best to mark promo CDs as such. record companies used to punch holes in the album covers of their LPs meant for promotion use or print "white label" records to distinguish them from the retail product. these days we just use sharpies to write "PROMO" on the covers, but it really is a futile effort. if you go to any mid-sized record store with a used/second-hand section, you'll still find tons of promo materials being sold.
occasionally we'll come upon our own promo CDs being sold at a record store, and in those situations we'll ask the owner to take them off the shelves or just buy them back. but as far as i know, it's not actually illegal to sell promo CDs.
and regarding the relevance of Capitol Records distributing free mp3s to this case, i think it has to do with the plaintiff's claim that MP3Tunes has "severely and irreparably [injured] Plaintiffs and other copyright holders by eroding legitimate sales of music through both traditional and online channels." i think those claims are dubious at best to begin with. but if Capitol Records is already distributing their own music all over the web where anyone is free to download it, then they can't really claim that MP3Tunes is eroding their sales simply by allowing their users to access their own uploaded music from any computer with an internet connection.
i mean, they might as well sue wireless router or S/PDIF cable manufacturers for illegally distributing copyrighted content. it's absurd. if i want to upload copyrighted content to my web server and access it from other computers, that is my right. this kind of "distribution" (if you can even call it that) should be protected under fair use, just like bringing a CD to a friend's house or even lending it to them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MP3Tunes claims to use fair-use rules to allow you to pipe your music where you want it. According to them you would put the music that you "own" into a "locker" and they would share it to you on a phone, iPod, or thru the web to work or school. According to them legally it's the rights to "your" copy that you are moving...
but the labels are suing them for charging for running a service to make sure the fair-use rules are followed and not rampant illegal file sharing. It's certainly a grey thing MP3Tunes
Re: (Score:2)
Which may well increase the resale value. Since they are rarer than regul
Re: (Score:2)
Just stating this dosn't make it so. IIRC there is case law that such labeling is null and void. It may also be relevent is the supplier provides a reply paid envelope for return and if CDs were solicited or unsolicited, even who the recipient is...
Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe? (Score:5, Informative)
There was a lawsuit about this and the eBay seller who was selling promotional CDs won the right to continue selling them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Adding to this, I think the crux of that case was that the promoter sent the CDs unsolicited through the postal service. The law, more or less, is that if you receive something in the mail unsolicited, it's yours to do want you want with, regardless of any sort of license or contract that comes with it. In order for terms to be enforceable, they have to be agreed upon before delivery.
In the eBay case, this was essential; as far as the court was concerned, the seller had auctioned up a regular CD, and the pr
Re: (Score:2)
How do you prove that you deleted the file if needed to prove compliance with the law?
You don't. It's not your job. It's the plaintiff's to prove otherwise.
Compared to other heavyweights.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this stuff is standard practice for a big organization in a powerful position. Yesterday I tried buying coffee beans from a small (2 location) coffee shop located in a mall. Apparently Starbucks had leased a spot elsewhere in the mall and negotiated a clause into their contract with the mall. The small shop could sell Starbucks beans or make coffee with their own beans, but was forbidden from selling their own beans.
I'm not sure why that situation doesn't qualify as anti-competitive, but controlling distribution options is a basic part of some businesses' plans.
Re:Compared to other heavyweights.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I once came across something similar where a small restaurant couldn't even sell brewed coffee because of a Starbucks in the shopping center! Likewise, Starbucks had a contract with the landlord...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Compared to other heavyweights.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The small guys do this too, to be honest. In my town, we have two small mom and pop coffee shops that are open for a few hours a day in the morning. They are not open when I'm looking for entertainment, and they don't provide internet (which if they did, I might go there earlier). In the biggest intersection in town, the corners consist of two gas stations, a park, and an empty lot (which is quite an eye-sore). Starbucks wanted to open there, but the small coffee shops lobbied to prevent the township from allowing the permits to build.
While generally, I would prefer having local businesses as opposed to mega-corporations like Starbucks, I cannot support local businesses that simply refuse to complete.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're quite incorrect.
Copyright doesn't matter -- their contract with the companies that distribute their music does.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL. I think the murky issue is the licensing. If Capitol Records put the mp3s on some site and said, "Come get free mp3s" and didn't have any terms or conditions, what's a reasonable assumption? Those mp3s are downloadable and distributable by everyone and anyone? Or that only consumers are permitted to download them? Without a license or terms of use/download, it's unclear to me.
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Insightful)
what's a reasonable assumption?
That copyright law still applies? That would be my "reasonable" assumption.
Unless they grant you the right to re-distribute their copyrighted works, you don't have one.
There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.
Re: (Score:3)
So someone could start a service pointing a user to where they can legally download MP3s? That would work in this case, since Capitol Records is distributing the MP3s themselves.
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.
You're 100% correct, but I think it'd be darn difficult to show damages. A certain famous case comes to mind where BellSouth claimed Craig Neidorf stole documents worth $79,449. As it turns out, they offered the documents for sale (from their catalog, no less) for $13. When this came out at trial, BellSouth wisely dropped the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling, available from Gutenberg. I think he pasted parts of it to Phrack, which he published at the time.
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:4, Informative)
There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.
Sure there is. Plenty of people got the Cue-Cat for free and sold it. They had the implicit right to re-distribute it after having gotten it for free. That's law, and it trumps copyright. Yes, they don't have the law to get one free Cue-Cat and make 10,000 copies they then distribute, but if they found a way to get 10,000 of them for free, then distributing them is perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when? If I buy patent rights I'm certainly entitled to re-sell (or even license it) those rights as I please. Likewise with copyright, and other forms of intangible personal property.
You're probably trying to say something about how they're not giving away a copy of the song, but only a license to use a copy of the song. That may or may not be true, depending on what agreement(s) were entered into before downloading the song. Even if it is true, they may or may not be able to enforce a contract that s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:4, Interesting)
The First-sale doctrine applies only to tangible property. It does not apply to an mp3 you downloaded.
Well, that's not entirely correct.
The reason why downloading can be infringement is because when you download a work, you necessarily fix the intangible work in some tangible medium, e.g. RAM, or a hard drive, as you do it. Fixing a work in a tangible medium constitutes reproduction under the copyright law, and reproduction is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
However, first sale applies to all lawfully made copies (a copy is a tangible medium that the work is fixed in; when you download something to your hard drive, the hard drive becomes a copy of that thing, along with whatever else the hard drive is), regardless of who made them. Any person who owns a lawfully made copy may, for example, sell that copy, without permission from the copyright holder. The statute is at 17 USC 109 if you'd like to look at it.
So if you were given permission by the copyright holder to download some music and fix it in any medium you wished, you could just start burning CDs and selling them, and it would fall under first sale. I suppose you could also just give away your hard drive or something, but generally people don't like to do that. However, it's more common that the copyright holder permits you to download the music only if you agree not to distribute copies of that music to other people. In that circumstance, so long as you don't sell, or give away copies, the copies you make are lawfully made. If you do sell them, then they're no longer lawfully made (you've exceeded the scope of the permission to download them in the first place) and so first sale doesn't apply.
I'm sure that folks here can see some parallels to the GPL: you can copy, distribute, and modify GPLed software as you like, so long as you obey the instructions of the GPL to make source available; fail to do that, and you can't have lawfully done those other things.
Re: (Score:2)
A question, and I'm asking because I honestly don't know, has it been clearly established under US law that distribute and delete equals transfer? Because if it is, then any free download could easily claim to have been done "infinity" times and so giving away copies is legal since you're legally not making another copy, just giving one of the copies you already have.
Re: (Score:2)
A question, and I'm asking because I honestly don't know, has it been clearly established under US law that distribute and delete equals transfer?
AFAIK it has not, and it likely wouldn't be if squarely addressed. Instead, it would be infringing as a new copy was made (the law doesn't care if an older copy was then destroyed; it's the act of copying that matters, not the number of copies left at the end of the day), and worse still, there was also distribution (or more accurately, performance or display) inv
Re: (Score:2)
However, it's more common that the copyright holder permits you to download the music only if you agree not to distribute copies of that music to other people. In that circumstance, so long as you don't sell, or give away copies, the copies you make are lawfully made. If you do sell them, then they're no longer lawfully made (you've exceeded the scope of the permission to download them in the first place) and so first sale doesn't apply.
I'm sure that folks here can see some parallels to the GPL: you can copy, distribute, and modify GPLed software as you like, so long as you obey the instructions of the GPL to make source available; fail to do that, and you can't have lawfully done those other things.
Once you brought the GPL into it, that shows you don't really understand.
No "license" that you don't actually sign can restrict your rights under copyright. The GPL doesn't restrict any rights...it actually expands them. If you violate the GPL, all that really happens is you lose your extra distribution rights. So, a GPL-like license that said that if you didn't provide source code then you could not re-sell a physical copy is not valid, since it can't restrict your rights under the first sale doctrine.
W
Re: (Score:2)
No "license" that you don't actually sign can restrict your rights under copyright.
Why wouldn't it? What's so magical about a signature?
If you don't have a right to download a copyrighted work and thus make a new copy of it (an infringing act, barring permission, or an exception in the law), then in order to be granted that right, you might have to shoulder some obligations, such as not exercising your right to engage in first sale with regard to the lawfully made copies of that work you've made pursuant t
Re: (Score:2)
Under that logic, if your original downloaded copy is to a flash drive (or CD), wouldn't right of first sale apply to the copy on the flash drive? That is just a non-volatile version of the actual bit stream that the seller sent to you. It's not a separate copy, it's the tangible storage of the original sold copy.
I suppose the record companies would like to argue that the original copy is just the original bitstream saved into the computer's RAM or in the swap file, but that logic is implementation dependen
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:4, Insightful)
You absolutely, certainly have the right to give something you downloaded to someone else, provided you do not also keep a copy. This does not violate copyright in any way.
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:4, Insightful)
True but irrelevant. Apparently EMI is suing Robertson for the initial act of EMI distributing the file. There is no "re-" prefix on that verb.
Analogy: You tell someone to go to a bookstore (a new one, not even a used one, let's say) and buy a book, they follow your advice and purchase the book, and then the copyright holder of the book sues you for telling people to buy the book. We're talking about the first sale itself, not even a disagreement about what can be done after the first sale. Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What am I missing here??? (Score:5, Informative)
I think what you're missing is spelled out fairly effectively in the linked declaration. EMI sued MP3Tunes not for redistributing their IP, but for linking to locations that did. More specifically, they required not only that they remove specific links to specific songs as they had done initially, but that they remove links to every EMI song in existence claiming that they had not authorized ANY of their songs to be distributed online. MP3Tunes declined to do this and was sued. This, however, gives examples of several places where EMI HAD authorized their songs to be distributed as MP3s and thus not every link to every song they own is an infringing link.
And the accompanying memorandum of law gives you the context in which the declaration was being submitted.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. And my last remaining mod point expired right before reading it. Darn!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does ownership give you any rights?
Just think DRM.
It's even simpler than that. (Score:5, Informative)
MP3Tunes wasn't even distributing the music.
All they were doing was providing links to where other entities (including, as it turns out, EMI) were distributing them.
They're saying "EMI told us to remove these links and said that they hadn't authorized any of this music to be downloaded, and look, here's where EMI was authorizing it..."
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing seems slightly tricky to me, in that even if the songs are hosted and freely available on the record label's website, it's still not clear to me by what license people are permitted to download those songs. What I mean is, if I own the copyright to a song, and then I put that song on a website without any kind of a password, does it necessarily follow that I've legally permitted people to download it without regard to any circumstances?
Because certainly it would seem crazy to put a link ri
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for explaining that, as I didn't even figure out that from the summary.
After a little research (karma link whoring, here I come!) I figured out the web page providing links to where other entities hosts files is here:
http://sideload.com/ [sideload.com]
As far as I can tell, it is run by the same guy who runs mp3tunes.com, and is pretty well integrated, but by just going to mp3tunes.com I did not find anything what you are describing. I found it by going through his blog and reading some of his own descriptions o
Re: (Score:2)
MP3Tunes looks like it's following the idea of 'You gave it away so we can give it away too'.
I thought that was called "non-discriminatory" condition. If party X gave party A something on particular conditions, it can't refuse to give party B the same thing on same conditions.
Essentially, PM3Tunes say that they are being discriminated. IANAL so have no clue whether it is applicable.
Here we go..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am thinking that 2009 is going to be a very interesting year for the RIAA's legal team. Who hasn't heard/read about the latest foibles from the record companies and I'm willing to bet that this one won't be the last.
Monopolistic practices? Unfair trade practices? Come on now! The RIAA and it's members would NEVER do anything like that. How many here wonder how many tune/files were seeded to P2P networks by the RIAA members themselves never mind paid third parties so that their 'investigative' group could actually find file sharers? Can you say Enron? Yeah, I know it's not even close to the same thing, but I am betting it breaks open as big in the news and it's after affects when the real truth of what big record labels have been up to for the last 5 years.
Take what Sony did. There is an example of how unscrupulous they really are. Imagine the money that they have and they don't have employees that know it was not just morally bad, but illegal? Ignorance of the law is not acceptable in court.... unless you have several hundred million dollars to buy things for legislators holidays and such.
Like my great grandfather used to say... "The shit you see when you don't have a gun... damn"
He was of course talking about deer on the side of the road, which is close to road kill, and I hope that is what 2009 will label the RIAA, so it kind of fits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
orly? Price fixing? Extortion? Abuse of power? Collusion?
Does this open your eyes?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Monopolies are inherently unfair. That is why they are
highly limited and strictly regulated. Everyone (except
certain robber baron wannabes) realize how destructive and
counter productive monopolies tend to be.
Content publishers (calling them creators would be inaccurate)
want to pervert centuries of practice in terms of first sale
and other basic rights associated with ownership of something
or ownership of a copy of something. Upsetting this particular
apple cart would have far reaching implications beyond
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious. How do you explain the root kit on Sony CDs with ignorance or stupidity? Anyone that stupid should not be in business. period. The Sony legal team has enough experience to protect trademarks, read the news, and study the laws. Any software release that was not run through the legal team opens the company to unknown litigation costs. When you have that much to lose, being stupid is not an option.
Enron, as I mentioned them, is but one example of a big business going out of their way to screw over
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.
Hm, sounds problematic to me. Copyright doesn't include an exclusive right to listen to music. The copyright holder can control making copies of the music, making derivative works based on the music, performing the music, broadcasting the music, etc. but not actua
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly right..... if it is published, it is "in" the public domain. At this point, the auther or copyright holder no longer has right over distribution. period.
EMI has no right over this, they have claimed something that is false, and published the works for free, as in anyone can have a copy without license and without agreement. It's free for the taking. There can be NO ad hoc after the fact licensing. It was put in the public domain without licensing, and is therefor public domain. The argument
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly right..... if it is published, it is "in" the public domain. At this point, the auther or copyright holder no longer has right over distribution. period.
Whoa there, Tex.
The 'public domain' is a term of art, which here basically means that a work is not copyrighted. Since copyrights are not absolute rights over a work, but are instead more limited, one could say that a copyrighted book is in the public domain with regard to the right to read it -- since reading is not a right governed by copy
Re: (Score:2)
"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.
You also run into the issue that if I only license the music and my copy is damaged or lost, I then have the right to demand a replacement so that I can exercise my license. Currently none of the record companies will do so. They will instruct you to go out and purchase a new copy of the recording.
This is where the you license not buy argument proves to be fallacious.
Re: (Score:2)
You also run into the issue that if I only license the music and my copy is damaged or lost, I then have the right to demand a replacement so that I can exercise my license.
Well, no. The terms of a license can be anything under the sun. A right to guaranteed access to any, or to a particular copy, of a work is a term that might be present, but certainly doesn't have to be. A license is a permission, basically a promise of the licensor not to sue the licensee for the specified things the latter is doing that
More nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I support many of his efforts, he's a snake in the grass and everyone knows it now. There's not a single respectable company that's willing to come within a mile of him due to his previous actions, and this is his dying breath.
I can only hope this bankrupts him so he'll stop hurting people
P.S. When this lawsuit began, he posted on his blog about them trying to "take his minivan". He doesn't mention his massive ranch in San Diego, his Lexus (which cost about two of his (extremely underpaid) programmers' yearly salaries), or his $20M beach house in Del Mar. Fuck MR.
So, "a pox on both their houses"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if he's "a scumbag" that doesn't mean that EMI are angels. Sometimes there aren't any good guys.
oblig Riddick quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
pure good battling against pure evil (Score:2)
http://lessig.org/ [lessig.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Michael Robertson is a scumbag.
I thought he sounded familiar. As parent mentions, here's a link to the blog of Kevin Carmony, [blogspot.com] former President and CEO of Linspire, for similar-sounding story.
Free != free to redistribute (Score:3, Informative)
Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.
The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).
- Roach
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.
Does linking to other sites that are actually hosting the music count as "copyi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Free != free to redistribute (Score:4, Informative)
Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.
No shit.
The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).
- Roach
THEY WERE NOT REDISTRIBUTING IT. They were *linking* to content stored on Capitol/EMI servers, or servers owned by third parties (such as Akamai) for the purpose of distribution Capital/EMI content. The point that they're making in the court submission, if you bothered to read it, was that it was acceptable for parties (maybe Google) to link to it, but not MP3Tunes.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Appears to be Accurate (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Goodbye, EMI. Hello, MP3Tunes. (Score:5, Funny)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
I had to befriend you for that. I hope you don't mind. Thanks.
Thinking about this makes me laugh. (Score:3, Funny)
1. The links work.
2. Several of us have used them.
thinking about the suit (providing links to music)
this document is nice piece of work, in writing it, reading it,
linking to it, we have all taken part in the supposed violation of
EMI's rights.
many words come to mind but the choice of mad world as one of the linked songs, well thats enough for me.
Is this just a "deep linking" situation? (Score:2)
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 email 10's GB of illegal MP3s back to the RIAA (Score:2)
I want to make sure they get what they're asking for so I hammer them tons of ill gotten files. Regularly.
Beckerman vs noscript (Score:2)
A General Principle regarding the Internet (Score:2)
Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't really figure out what NYCL's summary was trying to say here, other than link to the 10-page declaration as simple info. Are we meant to read something into this, other than the general "Labels are doing shenanigans again" message? Or does this feed into the RIAA issue or even into current cases in some specific way?
I wasn't really "trying to say" anything, just reporting on some interesting facts. Yes this plays into all of the record companies' stupid cases, in MANY ways, relevant to MANY issues. No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum, but lawyers representing defendants will have a field day with this stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum
Your posting history says otherwise. :)
Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
NYCL I love you. I was surprised to find you were the older of the ones pictured on your website, thinking my elders didn't have a clue about technology. For that I am sorry. You are not on the side of your clients, at least not publically on riaavsamerica blog. You are on the side of what you believe to be true, based on of your countless university hours and countless hours in reality on top of that. There have been very few people, since I first became aware of politics in the early Clinton days, who took a stand on belief rather than financial or political gain. Your continued investment in the purely informative postings you continue to provide, as well as your cameo commentary on aggregators such as this, suggests you are trying to follow the law, as opposed to following the money. I could be biased, being on a certain side of the RIAA cause. But I have thought for a number of years -- no one in this country would give up their home for a cause. Few would go to jail for the confidentiality of their sources. If we had a civil war we would struggle to find someone to fight. Because everyone has a decent job, or at least most people do (unemployment isn't that high), and those who don't, don't automatically have to become toilet cleaners. Our economic status was, for a while, equal to none. And throughout that, you posted information, then questions, then support, then as we see here back to information again, for the good of... not yourself certainly. Please, do not humor me with a personal reply as you so frequently do here. Instead, accept the thanks of a million geeks who could not otherwise provide any feedback in any fashion. You are the last starfighter, the last true outpost in American society. If we can't understand the digital revolution and all of the intricacies that it introduces, we are in a world of hurt. And if "we" have cushy enough jobs and a reliable paycheck due to minimum wage hikes, there is no incentive to take the war into a public and therefore personal (or vice e versa) space. I see it with my colleagues and read about it here. No one wants to fight. So what if you were Skywalker? Or Mowgli? Or for shit's sake Neo... The fight is the same, the truth is the same, the enemy is the same. The fight is the same, and most people don't know it is happening. But if they knew where to look, they might have more than just a feeling.
Thank you for your kindness. But I am not the last starfighter, I am one of many. And when we are no longer here, there will be others to take our place.
A new pro-openness Senior VP at EMI (Score:2)
The following might have some bearing on the recent changes at EMI.
The lead designer and CTO of Linden Lab (the creators of Second Life) Cory Ondrejka left them a year ago, and halfway through 2008 he joined EMI as a Senior VP in digital strategy. Link that with the fact that between himself and CEO Philip Rosedale, they created a world in which all world content belongs to the residents who create it, not to Linden Lab. What's more, they open-sourced the Second Life client, and they have worked very acti