Victory For Music Locker Services? 51
Joining the ranks of accepted submitters, a user 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.
MP3tunes is a pretty cool service (Score:2)
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!? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
hey as long as he doesn't exclaim that he is the law and shoot you with a "double whammy"...
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 out
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
judges are jurors are way more informed
judges = jurors = INFORM + 10; ?
Victory? No (Score:1)
Inconclusive at best.. The lawyers can milk this for a while longer
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Conclusion
It's not clear where the ruling leaves MP3tunes.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Victory? No (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Your opinion is based on speculation.. Wait until the appeals have been made and the fat lady gets her royalties.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is funding someone's defense fraudulent or illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that what amicus curiae briefs are for?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amicus Curiae
Funding defence, which is perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Victory? No (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
It's fun to violate the
D-M-C-A
It's fun to violate the
D-M-C-A
Re: (Score:1)
Until you get violated by the
R-I-A-A
Re:Gaygirlie (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Of course, this being Slashdot, it's also equally plausible that she's
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
-
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 str
Re: (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why my music career failed (Score:2)
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.
Now if only Google Music Manager worked on Linux.. (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/support/music/bin/static.py?page=known_issues.cs [google.com]
"Only two accounts can be used per computer"