Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com Sued for 'viral' Copyright Infringement?
Are We Afraid writes "Apparently the RIAA isn't the only one looking to make money off of MP3.com. They have just been sued by a group of independent artists for, get this, "viral copyright infringement". What does that even mean???" They claim that people who downloaded MP3s from mp3.com contributed them to napster, so MP3.com owes them. It's really bizarre.
MP3.COM IS VIVENDI.
Did you not notice when they were bought out? Have you not read the contract/artist agreement mp3.com artists are required to agree to that gives Vivendi PERMANENT RIGHTS over the artist's music even after you leave? Did you not notice that they are leaving it open for mp3.com to insert promotional materials INTO that music via language that gives them carte blanche to edit and alter what you give 'em?
mp3.com IS the stranglehold of a major label. Vivendi. Read the contract- better yet, run it by an entertainment lawyer if you don't believe me. mp3.com DESERVES to be destroyed to keep people like you from mistakenly touting it as some kind of independent resource when it is now a wholly owned part of Vivendi and YOU PAY THEM to participate in the 'royalty' like programs they have- which, I might add, are arbitrary and obscure, meaning that they are free to simply never pay you!
Go ahead, people, sue mp3.com! You're really just suing Vivendi- which probably doesn't care whether mp3.com lives or dies. Buying out mp3.com was a purely strategic move, and now Vivendi artists top the charts at mp3.com, with indie acts actually kicked off the service and their 'money' withheld through trumped-up charges if they have the nerve to chart higher than the Vivendi acts... do some googling for 'Analog Pussy mp3 vivendi artist activity', see for yourself.
mp3.com are NOT YOUR FRIEND.