Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees
from the but-the-copyright-office dept
In the US, if you really want to "protect" your copyrighted works, you have to register the works. Unlike for a patent or a trademark, it's pretty much a rubberstamp process. Every so often the Copyright Office will reject a registration, but it's rare. It does still go through them all, though. Or at least it's supposed to. However, we recently wrote about the weird case of the site Bluebeat.com selling Beatles MP3s for $0.25. We noted that nowhere on the site did the company explain how it had the rights to do so, but in its response to the lawsuit filed by EMI, it explained its bizarre logic.Basically, the company claims it somehow re-recorded the songs via a "psycho-acoustic simulation" (don't ask) and then added an image to the file, making it a totally new work (um... yeah). And then it registered the copyrights on those new recordings, claiming that the re-recording is a new work where Bluebeat.com actually owns the copyright. Its "proof" is that the Copyright Office okayed the registration -- suggesting that the rubber stamp at the Copyright Office is a bit too quick at times. A judge isn't buying it and has barred the sale of the MP3s for the time being (i.e., almost certainly forever). While it's amusing to see Bluebeat's tortured explanation, perhaps some of the blame needs to go to the Copyright Office for allowing these registrations in the first place. Of course, you have to wonder if this now also opens up Bluebeat to additional charges of false representation in registering the copyright...
In the meantime, some readers have noted that this is not the first time that the folks behind Bluebeat.com have had ridiculous interpretations of copyright law. Two and a half years ago, it sued Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks and Adobe for not using the DRM created by Bluebeat's parent company, Media Rights Technologies. Basically, the company claimed that by not preventing the ability to rip files, these companies were violating the DMCA. Of course, that makes no sense.
Given that it's now twice that we're seeing totally foreign interpretations of basic copyright law, it almost makes you wonder if the company is doing this to make a point about the ridiculousness of copyright law, rather than for any legitimate reasons. Either that, or the company actually thinks that filing lawsuits as publicity stunts is smart. I would imagine that a judicial slapdown might correct the folks behind Bluebeat and MRT of that notion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright office, registration, the beatles
Companies: bluebeat, media rights technologies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Their actions make the stupid 1st amendment free speech arguments against copyright sound brilliant, and they too are fairly lame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So exactly what, or which, "stupid 1st amendment free speech arguments against copyright" would you be referring to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyfraud?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sheet music does this
I find it insulting/disturbing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright Office Overloaded
The Copyright Office has a major backlog as it is, so if it had to carefully ensure that every application was completely copyrightable and owned by the right people, it would need a lot more resources. I think moving all copyright cases to an adjudicative component of the Copyright Office is worth considering, but it would require more money and authority than the Office has right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just for the record, I don't believe a "fully loaded automatic weapon in public" is a free speech issue. In point of fact, that would be a second amendment issue which, while related, is very different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think they're the copyright equivalent to the Yes Men.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And see, I don't. I think they're an odd bunch of megolamaniacs that actually give those of us that want a reasonable discussion on copyright reform really bad names.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some copyright haters think that a 1st Amendment challenge to a system that has been around a couple of hundred years has merit. I will say, it has more merit than these idiots claiming copyright on stuff they know they don't have copyright on. But that is the difference between zero and "just about zero"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Office Overloaded
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copy = New Copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fraud
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Little advice to bluebeat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If so, it seems copyright on images is broken
If not then copyright can be used to prevent pictures being taken in any location, by placing posters of images you own on the walls (n.b. these could be photos of wallpaper).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fraud
So, you're saying that Apple is committing massive fraud with itunes too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it that different than...
I take the sheet music from Mozart, change one note, and get a cheap band to play it. I have three brand new copyrights, all are considered legit at this point in time. A copyright on the sheet music, a copyright on the arrangement I got together, and a copyright on the music itself. After all, that is how WGM and other music groups can take down classical music from Youtube.
The only difference here is that instead of a human band, they used computers. Instead of a new group of singers, they used voice synthesizers. And we KNOW that the Recording is a COMPLETELY different copyright then either the sheet music or lyrics.
So, really, is their claim THAT out of left field?
And that is not even considering the companies that reprint Mark Twain and claim a new copyright due to formatting or page numbering, or movie reprints of Nosferatu with copyrights on how since it is on a DVD instead of the original tape it is covered by a new copyright. Honestly, this seems almost LOGICAL when examined side by side with those other examples.
That said, it is all BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When you photograph a photograph, you are still creating something new(?) so of COURSE you get the copyright on it.
Now we just need the final step where by having the copyright of the photo of the photo, you get to take ownership of the source photo's copyrights. And we are SO close too!(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080509/0229381071.shtml) Just need to turn it to work the other way too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward
Now even if they used new musiciansor computers the music itself is still copyrighted and they must get permission to record them and pay for that right.
Mark Twains works are no longer under copyright, so actually anyone can release a copy of his works legally, although you would have to make sure you copied the original works and not any that may have been produced with additional content that might fall under copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright Office
1) It establishes a presumption that the work actually existed at the time you've registered it, and that you own it. This presumption is rebuttable by evidence (ie, as it will be in this case).
2) In Canada, it eliminates the defence of 'innocent infringement' (which, to my knowledge, doesn't exist in the US, and probably won't exist in Canada after the next round of copyright 'reforms').
There's no real way that the copyright office can check and make sure something is original for most works. Sure, they could spend a ton of effort skimming for stuff like this, but it's not really worth it. A copyright registration isn't worth all that much (it's not like a patent registration or trademark registration where the actual getting of the thing registered takes work and is an accomplishment).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
National Museum
Now if I take a photo of a photo, my photo may be copyrighted but usually only if it varies from the original, but if I sell it as the original photo that is fraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright office
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes sooo difficult.
Type in X web address, look at catalouge in question, determine if said works are owned by claimed owner.
LOL. STOP DEFENDING INCOMPETENCE, AND POORLY RUN GOVERNMENT PLEASE. Good points otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0317365399.shtml
Now you can enjoy some of the reasons why Techdirt is something like The Onion, you really have to think that so much of this is made up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Type in X web address, look at catalouge in question,
You might find this hard to believe, but there was a world before the Internet and there is still one outside of it.
...determine if said works are owned by claimed owner.
Just by magic, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
17 U.S.C. sec 114 exemption
They probably did as that's exactly how MP3 recordings are created. An algorithm is used to analyze the spectral content of a source and then psycho-acoustic models are used to estimate how it would be perceived by a human listener. The algorithm then creates a recording that, when played back with an appropriate device, can imitate or simulate that effect on the listener so that to the listener it sounds about the same due to psycho-acoustic effects.
Now, what about 17 U.S.C. sec 114? Well, it has an exemption concerning sound recordings that "imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording" that exempts them from claims of infringement.
See Bluebeat's point?
Of course, strictly following the law in this case would be politically incorrect and most judges, including this one, are all about political correctness. All the judge had to do was just declare that the MP3 process has not been "proven" to operate as described above and, poof, no more exemption. And of course the judge himself is the arbiter of what is and isn't proven. A bit of legal fiction to get the job done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We are THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmmm
Not entirely crazy, especially if you read that. If you don't, short: 76 copyright act sunsets start soon, and a great deal of huge selling records are going to get returned to the artists that recorded them if they file for them, bands like the Eagles and other late 70's/early 80's bands to start. The RIAA has already tried to make that not happen with one sentence of language in an unrelated bill that would have made them all works for hire. One of their new arguments is that if they remaster digital versions of analog recordings, the can give the analog back and say the digitals are new recordings that they still own. Bluebeat is taking it a bit more extreme, but RIAA makes arguments that are just as totally beyond the pale, and might make that exact one to protect some very profitable catalogs from reverting to popular artists that certainly are not getting what they are paying for on their copyright, they don't need to establish a name, they don't need mass produced disk printing. If they can sell their songs themselves for the cost of bandwidth and print to order solid state media, it will be a big step to the RIAA getting choked out, because they are not worth the cut they take to bands and artists that have a multi generation fanbase, and they know it, so they will say and do anything to hold on to the masters they have. Bluebeat was dumb to try this with the beatles catalog, which has a complicated ownership at the moment, and is really really insanely high profile. Without bluebeat doing what they did, the RIAA or any of their client companies would have picked a smaller, quieter catalog to try this argument on first and see if it held water with any judge they go to lunch with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sheet music does this
You can record as much Mozart as you want, and own the copyright for the recording itself. You can also transcribe the music to notation, create a printed work from THAT, and copyright the printed work as well. They can only complain if you copy the printed work. They have nothing to say if you want to transcribe Mozart yourself and distribute it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]