EMI: There Should Be No Safe Harbors For Pre-1972 Songs

from the because-that's-how-we-shake-down-service-providers dept

Ah, desperation on the part of a major record label is so sad. Following the judge's ruling in the MP3tunes case, which protected the basic concepts of DMCA safe harbors for music lockers, EMI is now asking the judge to reconsider two key points in the ruling. The first is whether or not the DMCA applies to pre-1972 recordings. As we've discussed in the past, sound recordings from before 1972 are not covered under federal copyright law, but a variety of (dreadful) state copyright laws. This is, depending on how you look at things, either an accident of history, or an accurate recognition by Congress in 1909 that the Constitution does not allow Congress to let copyright cover sound recordings.

Either way, the RIAA and its labels love the fact that pre-1972 recordings don't fall under federal copyright law, because it keeps songs out of the public domain for much longer -- since the mass of state laws are even more ridiculous in many ways.

One of the issues in the MP3Tunes case was whether or not the pre-1972 recordings were subject to DMCA safe harbor protection, and the court -- quite reasonably -- ruled that they were, pointing to the plain language of the law. EMI is really upset about this and insisting that there should be no safe harbors. This lays bare the RIAA's other cynical ploy in its bag of tricks. If there are no safe harbors for pre-1972 recordings, then that would mean that the labels could go after all sorts of service providers demanding cash for actions of their users. Someone uploaded a Beatles tune to YouTube? Well, according to the RIAA/EMI's argument, YouTube should be liable.

Yeah, they're getting desperate, when their remaining playing cards include figuring out ways to shake down third parties rather than improve their business model.

EMI separately argues that the court was mistaken in believing that MP3Tunes effectively disabled accounts of repeat infringers. On this point, it suggests that the court was either misled or misunderstood what MP3Tunes had done in terms of disabling accounts. The basic argument is that MP3Tunes insisted for a while that it did not terminate accounts for infringement, but then later claimed that it did -- and the court just accepted the latter argument. Here, EMI's basic claims do read much stronger, and MP3Tunes will certainly have to explain the discrepancy in statements from company employees. Either way, as expected, this case is far from over.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, michael robertson, safe harbors
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...

from the ah,-major-labels dept

A few years ago, we wrote about Tim Quirk's struggle to get Warner Music to actually provide any sort of accounting for the money earned by his band, Too Much Joy. There have been a few similar stories over the years, and what you begin to realize is that it appears the major labels basically don't even track this stuff. They seem to assume most bands just won't recoup, and so they never have to provide any accounting to them at all (and just keep the money for themselves). From what I've heard, if a band is truly successful and keeps bugging the label, eventually they'll put together something approximating an accounting of what's been earned. Who knows how accurate these statements are.

Of course, sometimes these stories go from just wacky to downright insane. Hans Ridder points us to the story of Bill Nelson, of the band Be-Bop Deluxe, and the rather ridiculous situation he went through over the years. The actual story is about a decade old, but got some renewed attention earlier this year when a bunch of blogs reposted it. We just came across it when Ridder sent it in, and wanted to post it here because it really shows how these labels treat some of their artists -- never giving any actual accounting, always slow to reply with any details, always denying that anything's been recouped. The fact that they then started changing their story and claimed they actually gave the money to the wrong people -- then denied that, then again said that was the case later -- is only an added dimension to the insanity.

The story began with Nelson asking EMI repeatedly for an accounting of what had been earned for Be-Bop Deluxe, and either getting no answer at all or (after asking many times over) being told that the band had "not recouped." There was never any evidence presented for this. The label kept reissuing works, and even contacted him to work on some of them. In one case, they told him that if he helped work on a "best of" offering, that would tip the account over, and he'd start receiving royalties. Of course, that never happened. Yet EMI came back again to ask him to work on a box set, and he asked again. And that's when things got bizarre:

Over a period of two years, a very strange story emerged. The first communication the lawyers received from EMI said that they HAD, in fact, been paying royalties...to 'the band.' My response to the lawyers was..., "Ask them which band," as I certainly had not received any royalty payments from the record company. After a long time and further prompting from the lawyers, EMI said that they actually had been making royalty payments to Nick Dew, Ian Parkin and Rob Bryan. The amazing thing about this is that these three people were NOT on any of the Be Bop Deluxe albums except the very first one, 'Axe Victim.' All the other albums were recorded with different musicians, (Charlie Tumahai, Simon Fox and Andy Clarke), under a different contractual set-up. It seemed that the first line-up, who only ever recorded the ONE album, had been receiving royalty payments from EMI for ALL Be Bop recordings, including re-issues... Recordings in which they had taken NO part, either as performers or otherwise. The really damning thing about this is that none of the original members of the band ever spoke up about it and said, "hang on a minute, I'm getting money here for music I didn't even make!" (It would be evident from the royalty statements they received that the payments were for various albums from the Be Bop catalogue, and not just the 'Axe Victim' album.) Record company cock-up aside, what does this say about people you once regarded as your friends?

Anyway, after I had explained to the lawyers, via Richard, that these people had not earned royalties on anything except the band's first album, letters were then sent to EMI requesting an explanation. Again, some months went by before any reply. I seem to remember that there was some muttering about EMI not knowing where to contact me to send royalties, (and me the only member of the original line up to have continued with a professional and public career in music), but, at a later date, they seemed to change their story and said that they hadn't paid the other members after all. Actually, they said, EMI were only obliged to pay a company called 'Be Bop Deluxe Ltd,' which had been set up by Be Bop's manager Mike Dolan and which no longer existed. As the company no longer existed, there was, EMI claimed, no legal requirement for them to pay any royalties generated by the product. (Despite earlier claiming to have paid money to the band's first line-up.)

Whilst trying to decide what to do next, I suggested that the lawyers should ask EMI to at least let me know how much my 'lost' royalty figures would have been. This would help me to decide whether it was worth pursuing EMI further. The legal costs are, of course, prohibitive, very much so for me. A major company like EMI can easily afford to spin things out until any opponent breaks under the financial strain. I, as they well know, can't.

Again, time passed, further reminders were sent to EMI and they finally replied. It seems that they had now gone back to their first story, that they HAD made payments but only to the three other members of the 'Axe Victim' line-up, excluding myself. A circular argument? Since then, further communications have been made between my side and theirs. These communications have always been marked by a painfully slow response from EMI. Spinning it out as long as possible, hoping that it might go away, perhaps? Eventually, an offer came... EMI would pay me any future royalties generated by Be Bop Deluxe product, provided, one suspects, that I didn't cause any more fuss. Basically, they said that they were under no legal obligation to pay me anything at all, (due to the 'Be Bop Deluxe Ltd' company's demise), although they do admit to paying royalties to the wrong members of the band. An administration mistake, apparently. Does that make it OK then?

In the end, his lawyers basically told him there was nothing he could do, except potentially sue the original members of the band, and that going any further with pretty much any strategy would be horrifically expensive. In the meantime, we're still supposed to believe that record labels have the best interests of artists at heart? Why does anyone believe this myth?

Filed Under: bill nelson, music, record labels, recording industry
Companies: emi

MP3Tunes Ruling Protects DMCA Safe Harbors

from the about-time dept

It's been many, many years since EMI started its ridiculous lawsuit against Michael Robertson and MP3Tunes, concerning a variety of factors with MP3Tunes and the concept of online music lockers. Someone told me that a final ruling was to be expected last November, but it only just came down and it's mostly good news. You can read the full filing here (pdf) or see it embedded below. The details of the case are a bit involved, but MP3Tunes is basically a music locker, similar to Google or Amazon's music locker/streaming player. Where it got a little complicated was that MP3Tunes also offered "Sideload.com" which allowed you to move MP3s found on the web into your music locker, so long as you could point it to a URL.

EMI argued that the company was not protected by DMCA safe harbors, claiming that it "purposely blinded itself to its users' infringement and failed to take any action against hundreds of users who sideloaded copies of songs identified" by EMI as infringing. But the court rejected that. It noted that the company "tracks the source and web address of every sideloaded song in its users' lockers and can terminate the account of a repeat infringer." Furthermore, the company did, in fact, terminate 153 accounts. Thus, the court says that MP3Tunes clearly qualifies for DMCA safe harbors. This is a good ruling and another useful DMCA win.

The court also, importantly, notes that many people sideloading content have no idea if it's authorized or not, and that it would be improper to treat them all as "blatant" infringers, especially since it's just for personal use:

The record reveals that MP3tunes's users do not upload content to the internet, but copy songs from third-party sites for their personal entertainment. There is a difference between users who know they lack authorization and nevertheless upload content to the internet for the world to experience or copy, and users who download content for their personal use and are otherwise oblivious to the copyrights of others. The former are blatant infringers that internet service providers are obligated to ban from their websites. The latter, like MP3tunes users who sideload content to their lockers for personal use, do not know for certain whether the material they are downloading violates the copyrights of others.

Separately, there's an important win hidden in a footnote, in that the court ruled that pre-1972 recordings qualify for DMCA safe harbors. As you may recall, we've spoken a few times about how pre-1972 recording are generally covered by state law, rather than federal copyright law (which is why many may not hit the public domain for much longer). EMI tried to argue that pre-1972 rulings don't qualify at all for DMCA safe harbors, but the court rejected that outright, noting the "plain meaning of the statutory language."

Where EMI did score a victory is in asserting that when it sent DMCA takedown notices over links from Sideload.com, MP3Tunes should also then have to reach into users' storage lockers and delete the associated songs. I'm not sure how this fits with the statute, but the court argues that because MP3Tunes has this information (when you sideload a song to your locker, it records where it came from), it should, in fact delete them from users' lockers. Even here, EMI's legal claim tried to stretch too far. It argued beyond just the specific notices, MP3Tunes should delete "all EMI content." The court disabused the label of that notion:

EMI's argument misconstrues the DMCA and applicable case law. Even assuming the representative lists properly identified EMI's copyrighted works, EMI had to provide sufficient information--namely, additional web addresses--for MP3tunes to locate other infringing material.... EMI's notifications provided only enough information for MP3tunes to remove the noticed websites from Sideload.com and to find and remove copies of songs sideloaded from those websites. They did not identify the location of additional infringing material, let alone all of EMI's copyrighted works. Absent adequate notice, MP3tunes would need to conduct a burdensome investigation in order to determine whether songs in its users' accounts were unauthorized copies. As discussed, the DMCA does not place this burden on service providers.

Another important rejection for EMI. It tried to use the infamous "red flag" knowledge aspect of the DMCA against MP3Tunes, saying that execs for the site itself uploaded works from "obviously infringing sites." The court notes that EMI's definition of "obviously infringing sites" is quite different than what he law suggests:

For instance, the websites rapidshare.com, fileden.com, and filefactory.com, as well as other sites used by MP3tunes executives to sideload songs do not use the words "pirate" or "bootleg" or other slang to indicate their illegal purpose and they are not otherwise clearly infringing. They are simply popular file sharing sites.

That's interesting given how frequently industry types love to insist that such sites "obviously infringe." Turns out a federal court disagrees. Thus, the court rejected red flag knowledge, noting that while some "investigation" may have turned up that such things were infringing, "if investigation is required to determine whether material is infringing, then those facts are not 'red flags.'" That's going to put on ice an awful lot of cases where the entertainment industry claims "red flag" DMCA violations.

The court also rejects the terms "free," "mp3" or "file sharing" are indicative of infringement, noting that "those terms are ubiquitous among legitimate sites offering legitimate services." In fact, as Robertson demonstrated via a crowdsourcing effort, EMI itself "regularly distributes works on the internet for free" (something it denied earlier). However, this undermines EMI's case:

Because of these activities, EMI's executives concede that internet users, including MP3tunes' users and executives, have no way of knowing for sure whether free songs on the internet are unauthorized.

That line alone could be important, given how often the industry insists that people "just know" what's infringing. The court recognizes, correctly, that it's not so easy.

Furthermore, and contrary to the claims of some who do not understand the law, the court notes that just because you receive DMCA notices, it does not establish that you have specific "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements.

Next up, we have another really important point that has been an issue in multiple cases. The question of financial benefit. Many people -- including the Department of Justice in the Rojadirecta case -- like to claim that because infringing activity on a website draws more traffic, they have proven that the site "profits from infringement." As we've explained over and over again, this is not accurate. The rule is that they have to profit directly from the infringement, not indirectly from traffic from the infringement. Once again, the court agrees with us, and not the copyright maximalists:

However the financial benefit must be attributable to the infringing activity.... While Sideload.com may be used to draw users to MP3tunes.com and drive sales of pay lockers, it has non-infringing users. Moreover, MP3tunes did not promote infringement. Rather, it removed infringing links... and terminated the accounts of users who blatantly shared copyright files with others.

That line may be death for some of the lawsuits against cyberlockers out there, which all seem to assume that traffic = profiting from infringement. While this ruling may not be applicable in other jurisdictions yet, you can bet lawyers will be pointing to it, and hopefully other judges will understand this key point.

EMI then scores again in the contributory infringement claim, based on the same reasoning above, in that MP3tunes refused to remove files from lockers if they were sideloaded from sources later deemed infringing by EMI. Separately, since EMI sued Michael Robertson personally (rather than just the company), the court notes that he's liable for direct infringement of infringing songs that he sideloaded.

There are a few other side issues as well, but generally speaking, this is a big victory for MP3tunes and the safe harbors of the DMCA. It is likely that there will be appeals (perhaps on both sides), so this is far from over in an already excessively long legal dispute. But this ruling is mostly good news.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, michael robertson, safe harbors
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

Former Google CIO & EMI Digital COO Guy Explains How File Sharing Is Good For Artists

from the oops dept

In April of 2008, EMI hired Doug Merrill away from his Google CIO position to lead the company's digital efforts. As we noted at the time, this actually seemed like an opportunity for EMI to really embrace what the technology allowed, though we feared whether he'd have any real power at EMI. Indeed, it wasn't too surprising to see him leave less than a year later, without a clear explanation at all. We'd heard some rumors of a bit of a "culture clash," and it appears that Merrill is finally confirming that in a recent speech he gave. What was the culture clash? Well, Merrill, like a typical Googler, decided to actually look at the data and found that it said file sharing could be good for artists and that users of Limewire were their best customers:

Merrill profiled the file sharing behaviour of people who used Limewire against the top iTunes sales and the biggest iTunes buyers were the same as the highest sharing “thieves” on Limewire.

“That's not theft, that's try-before-you-buy marketing and we weren’t even paying for it… so it makes sense to sue them,” he said wryly.

Not surprisingly, as we've noted over and over again, this sort of data and evidence (of which there are now at least half a dozen studies all saying the same thing) is simply not something that the major record labels are willing to hear. They just continue to deny the evidence. And then they wonder why they're flailing... Merrill apparently didn't talk about his departure from EMI, but it's not difficult to read between the lines.

Filed Under: customers, douglas merrill, music industry, sharing
Companies: emi, google

EMI Exec Thinks You Shouldn't Be Able To Listen To Your Own Music Without Paying Again

from the no-wonder-they're-confused dept

Via Glyn Moody, we get this bizarre story, which demonstrates how some "new media" execs at the major labels don't seem to understand "new media." A few weeks back, Michael Robertson had revealed the ridiculous demands that the major labels were making on anyone who wanted to license content for a cloud music player. Most of the demands made absolutely no sense and represented an ignorance of the technology involved. Remember, these services are about people uploading music they already have so that they can listen to it elsewhere. It's not about sharing music at all. Yet the labels, in their ultimate paranoia, continue to insist it is. Wayne Borean posted a link to Robertson's story on the astroturfing "Balanced Copyright" page, that is a front for the major record labels. Jeff Thistle, who is the "Director of New Media" for EMI Canada responded (also mirrored here), saying that these demands were "all reasonable." When Borean challenged him on this, Thistle replied:

What measures do you propose be put in place to prevent the uploading of major label owned content? I can't speak to the mechanism to determine what an annual fee would be (presumably it would be by percentage of catalogue * number of lockers that the content resides in), but asking that controls be put in place to prevent the service from becoming another illegal sharing vehicle is *very* reasonable.

How does that make any sense at all? Why should anyone, who has a legal and authorized copy of major label content, be prevented from storing it online to listen to it remotely? And most of these digital lockers don't allow downloads and are only for the one user who uploaded their own music. The claim that these will become "another illegal sharing vehicle" is a total red herring. So they make up a red herring and pretend they're doing this to "protect" that which doesn't need protecting... when the reality is that they're just trying to force people to pay over and over and over again for music they already paid for.

Filed Under: jeff thistle, licenses, music, music lockers, streaming
Companies: emi

EMI Dumps ASCAP For Digital Licensing

from the ouch dept

Well, this is interesting. When Guy Hands had bought EMI years back, there was hope that, as an outsider, he might come in and shake things up in a good way. That didn't happen, and after a massive flop, Hands lost EMI to Citigroup earlier this year. And, yet, now it appears that EMI is finally making some interesting moves. First up: it's pulling back its digital rights from ASCAP and is going to license them directly. That's a huge hit to ASCAP (who will undoubtedly downplay the significance, though it really is huge). This also should ease the licensing of EMI's catalog, since it's all going through a single company, rather than having to involve multiple companies. I wouldn't be surprised to see others go in this direction as well. Of course, some musicians might not like it, as ASCAP tends to be a bit clearer in its royalty statements than many of the labels, but this is a big potential issue for ASCAP.

Filed Under: digital, licensing, music, publishing, rights
Companies: ascap, emi

Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song

from the men-at-work dept

A couple years ago, Australian music publisher Larrikin Music accused the iconic 80s Australian band "Men at Work" (and its label, EMI) of infringing on its copyright for the classic Australian folk song Kookaburra in their hit song Down Under. You can listen to both songs in the videos below:

If you can't tell (and some can't), a bit of the flute line in the Men at Work song is similar to the meldoy in Kookaburra. Most normal people would call this a tribute or an homage. But not Larrikin. The company, which only got the rights to Kookaburra (which was written in the '30s) in 2000, hadn't even noticed the similarity until it was mentioned in a game show on TV. So, of course, Larrikin sued. And, amazingly, it won... leading the court to grant Larrikin 5% of all of the song's earnings.

This is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. It's clearly not a straight copy, but a use of the well-known folk song to represent the atmosphere of Australia. The fact that Larrikin didn't even notice until it was pointed out on TV should also suggest that this wasn't some massive infringement issue. Finally, the fact that the song was a hit in the early '80s should have set off some sort of statute of limitations issue. Instead, Larrikin won...

EMI reasonably appealed the ruling, but chillienet points out that Larrikin has won on appeal as well, as a three-judge panel ruled that the song is infringing. The court even ordered EMI to pay the court costs as well. I guess the lesson is clear: don't promote decades old folk songs in your music in Australia.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, folk song, kookaburra
Companies: emi, larrikin music

Recording Industry Persecution Complex: Claiming EMI's Plight Is Due To File Sharing

from the um,-no dept

Bas points us to a bizarre opinion piece for NME (which is usually a bit better than this) in which recording industry insider Alan McGee posts a near factless diatribe claiming that EMI's recent takeover by Citigroup proves that "downloading has murdered the music business." There's almost nothing accurate in McGee's piece. It's fantasy-world writing where people just make up stuff. Let's dig in a bit:

First things first: EMI is still a great British label. I mean, it owns the Beatles back catalogue! So why is it in the hands of a bank? It’s just economics. Guy Hands bought it in 2007, at the height of the market, when people were paying stupid prices for everything, not just labels.

Ok. So we agree. Guy Hands (well, really his firm Terra Firma) paid way too much for EMI in 2007. Frankly, that's the reason for EMI's plight today. Terra Firma got infatuated with the names on EMI's roster, didn't understand the recording industry at all, and got suckered into paying way over a reasonable price, and then couldn't handle the debt load. It had nothing to do with people paying stupid prices in 2007. People weren't paying stupid prices for record labels -- just Terra Firma. And that's because they didn't really understand what they were buying.

The trouble is, now everyone has woken up to the reality, which is that illegal downloading is murdering the music business.

So much incorrect in such a short sentence. First, I don't think anyone views the industry's situation much different in 2011 as they did in 2007. File sharing was rampant then as it is now. The struggles the recording industry were facing were already quite clear in 2007 (hell, they were clear in 1997 to people paying attention). Second, the only part of the "music business" struggling is the record labels. Nearly every other part of the music business has grown massively over the last decade. Third, there is little to no evidence that "illegal downloading" is the cause of any serious problems. Yes, it does act as a substitution in some cases, but as we've seen over and over again, when musical acts embrace file sharing in conjunction with a smart business model, they end up making more money. So, no, "illegal downloading" is not the cause of EMI's problems. EMI's inability to adapt to a changing market, combined with a massive debt overload was the issue.

I actually think Guy Hands didn’t do a bad job. He was just personally unfortunate. He came along at the wrong time. Shit happens. It was a time of affluence of abundance. Then the world economy turned upside down, Lehman Brothers went broke, and the world changed. The market crashed.

Huh? The market crash had nothing to do with the troubles facing EMI. Nor does McGee show how the two are connected. As with his earlier claims, he just insists it's true with no proof.

EMI's problems should be a wake-up call. How did they get into this mess? It all comes back to the impact of illegal downloading. We have to change the legislation in this country and come down much harder on piracy.

First up, we've already discussed why the impact of unauthorized file sharing was not the problem, but more importantly, countries around the world have been changing legislation plenty over the last decade to come down much harder on "piracy" and it's done nothing to improve the lot of the record labels. Is McGee totally unaware of the Digital Economy Act in the UK? Rather than recognize that such laws have been passed and have not helped the record labels, McGee just wants more protectionism. That old line about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results may apply...

Otherwise guys in little bands starting out now are never going to be the next Rolling Stones.

Wait, so the only options are failure or the Rolling Stones? And that statement is a ridiculous one either way. What we've seen (and been documenting for years) is that things are much better for bands starting out today than in the past because they don't need to win over the gatekeepers. They can find their own audience. They can create their own business models and make a living -- unlike under the old system, where you either hit it big or you gave up and went back to your day job. As for who will be the next Rolling Stones, I have little fear that the general nature of human psyche will continue to find new acts to turn into superstars.

And, should we even mention just how much money the Rolling Stones make from touring, which is an industry that has actually been helped by unauthorized downloads in building up larger fanbases of various bands?

When you download an album illegally, it's not the record company guys that get fucked -- those people are still on massive salaries -- it's 19-year-old kids, it's guys in bands making £100 a gig.

Wait, what? In this very same paragraph you claimed the totality of EMI's problems were due to unauthorized file sharing, but then just a few sentences later you claim the record labels aren't impacted. Keep it together, McGee. As for the impact on the 19-year-old kids making £100 per gig, they can actually be massively helped by file sharing, because the more people who know and like their music, the more people will be willing to come out to their gigs, so maybe they'll start making more than that £100.

When I came along in the 80s and 90s, I was lucky to be in a market where people bought music. Now If I wanted an album, I could just go on some torrent site and download it. You've got to give bands a chance, let them develop. In the 80s, bands started dodgy, then they got good. The bands I worked with – Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine, even Oasis -- it took them a few years to go from being OK to being good. These days bands don't get the chance, they just get dropped.

Again these are statements that appear to imply some sort of causal relationship, but fail to show any. What does the fact that people bought CDs have to do with letting a band develop? I mean, if it really takes so much time for a band to develop, then doesn't that mean people shouldn't be buying their early music anyway? And the final line highlights the crux of the problem: it assumes that the only way to succeed today is by signing to some big label. So if that label drops you, you're screwed. And yet, we're seeing over and over again that musical acts are being amazingly successful without a label (since they don't need to make nearly as much money as they have to on a label to make a damn good living). In fact, we're seeing bands celebrate being dropped from their labels, because it means more freedom to develop and the ability to make more money.

There's only one independent label, post-Creation, that's really been phenomenal, and that's Domino. Laurence (Bell, owner) is a genius. He's touched with gold dust. Whether it sells or not, he's got the magic touch.

This is a total non sequitur. What does the fact that there's been a good indie label have to do with file sharing or EMI?!? Furthermore, "whether it sells or not," seemed to be the whole point earlier in the article. Now it doesn't matter? Finally, to say that there's only been one good indie record label suggests a level of ignorance to what's actually going on in the music world today. There are a bunch of fantastic indie labels out there. Perhaps McGee should get out more.

As for me, if I ran EMI, I'd get legislation changed and make a profit by stopping piracy.

Can someone -- anyone -- explain how getting people to stop downloading creates a profit anywhere? Getting people to stop downloading doesn't magically make them start buying. And it's not like EMI hasn't been among the efforts by all the major record labels to get legislation changed for years, and all of that has done absolutely nothing to stop file sharing. It's pure folly to suggest that there's some sort of magical legislative move that will stop unauthorized file sharing and create "profits" at the same time.

What will do that, however, is smarter business models -- something that McGee never even seems to consider. Thankfully, reading through the comments on that article, nearly everyone is pointing out all of these points to McGee, though I doubt he'll ever read any of them.

Filed Under: alan mcgee, failures, music industry
Companies: emi

As Expected, Bluebeat's 'Psycho Acoustic Simulations' Of Beatles Music Still Infringe On Copyrights

from the too-smart-for-your-own-good dept

About a year ago, we wrote about the somewhat bizarre case of a website called Bluebeat.com that claimed to legally be selling Beatles MP3s for $0.25. Of course, EMI disagreed and sued. Bluebeat's explanation was that it wasn't selling actual copies of the original music but had re-recorded the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation," which made it a totally "new work" in their eyes. But not, of course, the eyes of the law. Basically, Bluebeat was trying to misread a section of copyright law and a court is having none of that. In a move that will surprise almost no one, the lawsuit against Bluebeat succeeded on summary judgment, with the judge noting that "BlueBeat fails to provide any evidence...showing how or why its purported 'simulations' are anything but illicit copies of the Copyrighted Recordings."

Filed Under: copyright, mp3s, psycho acoustic simulations, the beatles
Companies: bluebeat.com, emi

EMI So Scared Of EFF Amicus Brief In MP3Tunes Case, It Asks Court To Reject It

from the what-are-you-scared-of? dept

There's been a lot of attention paid on various news sites over the past few weeks to the motions for summary judgment in the MP3Tunes case. If you don't recall, EMI sued MP3Tunes and (separately) its founder, Michael Robertson, arguing that the music locker service violated copyright law, even though it's designed to let individuals store and access their own music -- but not to allow others to access that music. The whole case has been quite bizarre and we're finally getting close to at least an initial ruling on how the court sees things. I was waiting until that ruling came out to cover it, but EMI's latest move is somewhat baffling.

You see, the EFF, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Home Recording Rights Coalition teamed up to file an amicus brief. That's nothing surprising and barely noteworthy. Those groups file amicus briefs on all sorts of similar cases having to do with the entertainment industry trying to stretch the interpretation of copyright law in a way that hinders new technologies. What makes things odd is that EMI has filed to have the court bar the brief from being used. The arguments are somewhat silly. Effectively, they argue that the court had asked the parties to keep their own arguments for summary judgment to a minimum (less than 35 pages). However, EMI states, this brief is really just supporting MP3Tunes' position, and thus, giving MP3Tunes a way to get more arguments than the 35-page limit allows.

Of course, it seems like all this really serves to do is to call a lot more attention to the EFF/PK/CEA amicus brief and to make you wonder what the hell EMI is so scared of having the court read about. And, really, shouldn't EMI be focused on staying in business these days, rather than worrying about what folks like the EFF and PK have to say about copyright law? If you want, you can see both the amicus brief and EMI's complaint about it after the jump.

Filed Under: amicus brief, copyright, dmca, music lockers, safe harbors, storage lockers
Companies: cea, eff, emi, mp3tunes, public knowledge