Universal Music Sues MySpace

How long before... by Sunburnt · 2006-11-17 13:41 · Score: 1

...the TV networks and sports commissions (MLB, NFL, the English FA and the like) start on this type of legal saber-rattling?

--
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)

Re:How long before... by kfg · 2006-11-17 14:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

They are the driving force behind the broadcast flag.

KFG

Won't catch Google by surprise... by slobber · 2006-11-17 13:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google doesn't maintain a lawsuit defense fund for nothing. Rumor has it that it grew to $500M after youtube was acquired. Apparently google was aware that likelihood of lawsuit would go up dramatically. It looks like Universal decided to test legal waters on MySpace first before tackling Google.

--
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q

Re:Won't catch Google by surprise... by Salvance · 2006-11-17 14:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

What's really unfortunate is that the lawsuits' end result is that the music industry gets significant licensing revenues from the deal, but the agreements are setup in such a way that the individual artists never do. Many of these are artists would be more than happy to share their music (or some subset thereof), but not in a situation where everyone is making money from their music except the creators.

--
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Re:Won't catch Google by surprise... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-17 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

hit right on the head. I mean the big 5 studios are looking at all the options from drm to clearances--they're getting attacked by both sides (distributors who want to open things up like youtube as well as content creators wanting music-like licenses).
Myspace is owned by FOX. Studios suing studios never happens. They always strike a deal as it's the industry that needs to be protected. This is testing the legal system against Google, MS and Yahoo--new media poo-poos old media cause it's all about the content and access--and new media doesn't have the quality content...YET.
Let the real media wars (between old and new media) begin.
Re:Won't catch Google by surprise... by loid_void · 2006-11-18 04:05 · Score: 1

"the end result is that the music industry gets significant licensing revenues"

And bad karma, that ultimately leads to their early demise. The sooner the better.

--
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?

Extortion by anubi · 2006-11-17 13:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looking at all these Slashdot reports of suing, it looks like this is the standard practice of corporate extortion.

This way, the "barriers to entry" can be set to any level the more powerful entity desires, so they can maintain their monopoly.

Smaller companies simply do not have the financial stamina to fend off litigation attacks like this.

The strongest ( most well funded ) entities will do well under such a system.

The rest of us... well... better do it in another country.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

Re:Extortion by udderly · 2006-11-17 14:47 · Score: 1

This is why tort reform as it pertains to Intellectual Property needs to be addressed.

Here's why it will never happen: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.asp. If money buys influence--and it absolutely does--then what group has the most influence? That doesn't even account for the fact that most Congressmen and Congresswomen are lawyers themselves.
Re:Extortion by General+Alcazar · 2006-11-17 14:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Looking at all these Slashdot reports of suing, it looks like this is the standard practice of corporate extortion.

Another option for those being sued might be to not base their revenue on copyright infringement and other obviously illegal practices. You make it sound like the only reason Universal is suing is because they have tons of money, which means they can make up their own laws. It may actually have to do with the fact that they actually have a case.
Re:Extortion by somethinghollow · 2006-11-17 15:12 · Score: 1

You are the first of a couple people who spoke of extortion. So, you get the reply. From m-w.com:
Extort to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

Correct me if I'm wrong, but suing MySpace really means suing News Corp, their parent company. While I think the settlement issues with people are definitely suspect of extortion, when Universal is threatening to sue someone big and powerful like MySpace-News-Corp (which ought to at least have the backing of News Corp, even if it doesn't have a hefty sum of cash laying around to throw at legal expenses), the grounds of intimidation or power are moot, and they clearly aren't being forced to give money. They could go to court. If MySpace chooses to settle out of court because they think they will lose on legal grounds, it isn't extortion (though they might pass because it's not worth the money/effort, in which case, they are settling out of laziness or lack of principles). While I think the *IAA is a first class asshole and I'd rather see it disbanded than survive, there are legitimate copyright violations happening that their members have the right to collect damages for. Not every suit they pursue is a travesty.

But I could be wrong. MySpace might actually be the little guy and they are being extorted. That said, I still question their practices of setting up agreements with all these "major players" (e.g. Microsoft with the Zune). It smells akin to Microsoft's recent deals with Novell.
Re:Extortion by ClassMyAss · 2006-11-17 16:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that they really shouldn't have a case as long as MySpace is taking infringing material down as soon as it is brought to their attention. By my reading, the safe harbor provisions were specifically put in place to protect exactly the type of thing that MySpace has going on, a webpage hosting service that they cannot be expected to police entirely. The fact that their software automatically does a format-shift when people upload videos isn't (or at least shouldn't be) relevant at all.

This is more of the same - someone provides a tool, some people abuse the tool and do illegal things with it. Too many people to police means that the provider cannot afford to make sure everyone is acting within the law. But the people whose copyrights are being infringed upon can't afford to go after the individuals for both PR and practical reasons, so they look for someone with fat pockets to blame. Frankly I'm confused about what is so different about a tool on a web server somewhere and a tool on my hard drive - if I used Winamp to convert a copyrighted video and then uploaded it to a GoDaddy hosted server, nobody would be blaming Nullsoft or GoDaddy for my crime. It would be my fault, 100%. It is ridiculous that the courts continue to allow these types of suits to continue without any clarification as to what the law actually means when it comes to hosting user submitted content.

I've got to say, I really thought MySpace would be immune to this type of thing, as much as I'd love to see it implode. The fact is, they don't base their revenue model on infringement in the least. If you removed video hosting altogether from MySpace, I sincerely doubt if anyone would even notice, considering YouTube's success in that venue. It's looking more and more like the only safe user content to host is plain old text, and I think that's a damn shame. The record industry middlemen seem to feel that it's more than appropriate to expect everyone on the net to protect their copyrights as fiercely as they do.
Re:Extortion by alshithead · 2006-11-17 16:05 · Score: 1

Respectfully, all public held businesses have a requirement to protect their business or they are not meeting their responsibilities to their shareholders.

That said, they obviously (to most of us) need to modify their business practices and change their business model to satisfy both their customers and their shareholders. If some of these executives got their heads out of their asses they might see they have fallen way behind the times. If they don't...things will continue the way they are for a while down the road. Of course having politicians in their pocket to legislate in their favor tends to help maintain the status quo.

--
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Re:Extortion by General+Alcazar · 2006-11-17 16:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Frankly I'm confused about what is so different about a tool on a web server somewhere and a tool on my hard drive - if I used Winamp to convert a copyrighted video and then uploaded it to a GoDaddy hosted server, nobody would be blaming Nullsoft or GoDaddy for my crime.

The difference is that MySpace actually generates revenue from advertisement - so they materially benefit when people perform copyright infringement using their tool, and can quite easily be shown to have a vested interest in not vigorously policing their site.
Re:Extortion by zotz · 2006-11-18 02:09 · Score: 1

"It's looking more and more like the only safe user content to host is plain old text, and I think that's a damn shame."

http://musicians.opensrc.org/DrewRoberts

Some people are making works that should be safe to host. Fund the creation of more stuff with licenses you like and host those works.

You will get a positive feedback loop going and things may have a chance of being different.

Talk to your local bands about funding some of their songs under Free licenses.

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Re:Extortion by makomk · 2006-11-18 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's looking more and more like the only safe user content to host is plain old text, and I think that's a damn shame.

How quaintly optimistic. I take it you didn't notice them threatening lyrics sites a while back, then?
Re:Extortion by ClassMyAss · 2006-11-18 05:29 · Score: 1

The difference is that MySpace actually generates revenue from advertisement - so they materially benefit when people perform copyright infringement using their tool, and can quite easily be shown to have a vested interest in not vigorously policing their site.
But using that argument, anyone that hosts ad-supported user content is screwed unless they have the time, staff, and knowledge to filter out every possible infringing item before it is publicly displayed (which is, needless to say, absolutely impossible at the current CPMs that most sites would be seeing on their ads). And even then, if something slips by, hey, they should've been watching more closely, right?

This is one of the tricky things that I (and to my knowledge, the courts) still don't quite have clear, though. MySpace benefits, like just about every website out there, from traffic to its site. Yes, of course they would benefit if they became known as the central free music/music video site on the net, but this is hardly the case. MySpace's primary purpose is now, and to my knowledge always has been, to allow people with no technical skills to put up really obnoxious looking websites and let them rack up friend counts while showing the world that they have "really cool" taste in music.

So yes - they do advertise, and yes - there are some infringing items on their site. But I don't agree that they have such a clear vested interest in not policing the site, simply because I don't think most people give a crap what videos are hosted there. Do you seriously think there are people out there thinking, "Hmm, I really want to see that Trent Reznor video I was hearing about, where can I find it...oh, yeah, I think I'll go to MySpace." Please. This is not a serious element of MySpace's business model. It seems to me that what we're talking about here is the potential to materially benefit from infringement rather than the actuality, and I think it would be presumptive to accuse MySpace of deliberately letting violations slide until there is evidence to the contrary.

But the law is unclear on whether this makes them immune to punishment or not, and I hope that this case will clarify things a bit - given the history of these cases, though, it probably won't, which suits the record/movie industries perfectly because the ambiguity makes it impossible to chart a safe legal course through these waters, so most companies will probably just stay away altogether.
Re:Extortion by General+Alcazar · 2006-11-18 07:10 · Score: 1

I completely agree with this. Hopefully the court will be able to add some much needed nuance in how to deal with these cases. As you point out, it is important to determine to what degree of infringement is occurring. How much infringing material is being hosted here? Personally I don't know.

And you certainly summarized MySpace accurately here!

MySpace's primary purpose is now, and to my knowledge always has been, to allow people with no technical skills to put up really obnoxious looking websites and let them rack up friend counts while showing the world that they have "really cool" taste in music.
Re:Extortion by anubi · 2006-11-18 12:35 · Score: 1

Even lyrics now, huh?
These are PUBLICALLY exposed words.
I wonder if I own a property, say a building, I also own copyright to any images taken of it? They are, indeed, hardcopy representations of MY building!
When I typed my first entry, I was still pissed upon reading that a patent for something I had been doing for quite some time had been issued. It seemed so damned obvious to me - as an analog engineer - to watch AC solenoid current to see if the solenoid "pulled in", and if there was something wrong with the current profile, buzz it a bit to see if I can "loosen it up" and flag the solenoid in the trouble log. Watching solenoid current on high-reliability things is damn near mandatory, because if the solenoid plunger fails to "pull in", the magnetic path fails to close, the solenoid inductance remains low, the inrush current stays way too high, and within a few seconds the solenoid will become a molten mess.
It grieved me that I likely have caused my company another litigation nightmare.
We are still on pins and needles over another one where I saw the energy being wasted in a snubber network on a switching power supply, and rerouted the snubber energy which would have been lost to use as an auxiliary power source to power the switching logic of the switcher. It was just a case of capacitively coupling the unwanted energy spikes from the switching transformer back to power the switching logic, so it no longer had to get its power from the line source via a big dropping resistor. The fact that another company has a patent on doing this has left us open to litigation... which we can not afford.
We used to call this kind of stuff "tricks of the trade". Now these same tricks are called "IP" and are open to litigation.
I am not mad at the entity that got the patents. What I am grieved about is how IP is becoming so litigious that it seems the whole country is becoming hooked on litigation (against anyone else doing something) for economic survival instead of doing anything useful.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:Extortion by anubi · 2006-11-20 11:45 · Score: 1

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.
I agree with your observation that business leaders must do whatever they can to protect the interests of their shareholders.
My primary concern is all this law is being passed which promotes useless litigation instead of productivity.
Economic races should be won by those who run the fastest, not by having our Government promoting one entity's success by encouraging his cleverness in tripping up his opponents. To me this is like telling the schoolkids that the first one to the playground can put "dibs" on all the playground toys, then extort the other kids of their lunch money to play. It distresses me to no end, living in "the land of the free, home of the brave", to have our lawmakers legislating such a litigious business environment for us.
Yes, all of us have "rights" but to what extent are these rights reasonably enforceable? Someone sings a song in public and someone else records it... or maybe I own a building, and someone else photographs it? Did they violate my rights to the image of MY building?
I feel I have a right to peace and quiet in my neighborhood, yet corporations feel if they can afford a helicopter, they have the right to fly it over my house. If the government considers it illegal for me to even record a publically aired song, then why isn't it illegal to fly a noisy machine over my house?
I don't know where this crap is going to end, but I sincerely hope the people get so fed up over it that the issue of relegislating IP becomes a cornerstone of an election.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

noooo by nickheart · 2006-11-17 13:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

What will we all have to complain about if MySpace goes away?

Oh PS3 launched today...

Universal Lawyers by MrNonchalant · 2006-11-17 13:51 · Score: 3, Funny

What is it with companies starting with "Universal" and web 2.0 litigation?

Re:Universal Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-17 21:47 · Score: 2, Funny

You could say it's a Universal habit with those companies...

and the shakedown continues by User+956 · 2006-11-17 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

If MySpace were to sign a similar agreement with the label, there is little doubt that the lawsuit would disappear.

And the legalized extortion continues. I wouldn't care so much except that they also persist in extending copyright terms.

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2006-11-17 14:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I really hate this crap. Small company does some innovation and becomes popular and the next thing you know, they're being sued by a multi-national corporation that's really just hoping the other company will settle the case so they can get a piece of the action.

I don't understand how MySpace would be liable for copyright infringment that's committed by users of the service. Doesn't MySpace classify as a common carrier? Of course no one ever goes to court to fight the big guys, *sigh*.

Re:For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by Loadmaster · 2006-11-17 14:07 · Score: 1

Which is the small company? Is it Universal or News Corp (owners of Myspace)? I can never remember which of the global media conglomerates is the small guy.

Swi
Re:For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by Lord+Kano · 2006-11-17 16:54 · Score: 1

Doesn't MySpace classify as a common carrier?

No. Myspace censors content all of the time. Although I hate the heavy handed tactics and extortion schemes of the *AA, MySpace couldn't possibly claim to be a common carrier.

MySpace terminates accounts of you post pornographic content. If they can police porno, they can't then claim to be unable to police copyrighted content.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by michaelhood · 2006-11-17 19:05 · Score: 1

One of the only good things that the DMCA brought us was to take care of this exact situation.

MySpace is not liable for unmonitored uploads done by its' users as long as it complies with takedown notices from copyright holders.

This is open and shut.

MySpace still however might settle with Universal, unfortunately.. preventing the precedent from being set.

Sigh, indeed.
Re:For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by muuh-gnu · 2006-11-17 22:53 · Score: 1

> If they can police porno, they can't then claim to be unable to police copyrighted content.

Actually porn is copyrighted content itself, so they just selectively delete copyrighted content that contains nudity, and let the music videos stay.
Re:For the Love of God, Someone Go to Court! by Lord+Kano · 2006-11-17 23:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually porn is copyrighted content itself, so they just selectively delete copyrighted content that contains nudity, and let the music videos stay.

If someone produces their own pornographic imagery and releases it to the public domain...

Regardless, MySpace's willingness and ability to police one type of content belies any claim that they are powerless to regulate their users' content.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

No big surprise by phreaki · 2006-11-17 14:02 · Score: 1

This shouldn't surprise anyone at all in the world, but the implications are damning for those that like to share what they like: Stop it, and stop it now unless you pay for it. Oh, you like XYZ? Where can I find XYZ's song to see if I like it? You can't, it's locked up in litigation. Why? The licensing requirements are steep, so it only shows up on one site only. Stifling? Oh yes. Legal? Very much so. They are so deep in the trees that they can't see how much Myspace can help smaller bands, and artist discovery. Someone will pay however until something else new comes along and gives them a new jolt of cash until they decide they want more in licensing. (I never knew the Pixies before Myspace and a whole lot of other bands.)

Re:No big surprise by kfg · 2006-11-17 14:58 · Score: 1

They are so deep in the trees that they can't see how much Myspace can help smaller bands, and artist discovery.

The hell they can't. That's exactly what they're trying to prevent.

KFG
Re:No big surprise by phreaki · 2006-11-17 15:36 · Score: 1

Sometimes I forget that we must take the same artists over and over until we are 60 years old. We only have enough money to keep giving it to one person. Funny how all the reports are that the artists get nothing for the plays on Myspace, just the label. How wonderful for just one entity.
Re:No big surprise by nomadic · 2006-11-17 16:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh, you like XYZ? Where can I find XYZ's song to see if I like it?

The radio? Amazon.com? BN.com? Jukebox? Listen to it at a friend's house? Listen to it at a record store listening kiosk? There are plenty of perfectly legit ways to try out songs before you buy them.
Re:No big surprise by ScentCone · 2006-11-17 16:54 · Score: 1

The licensing requirements are steep, so it only shows up on one site only. Stifling? Oh yes. Legal? Very much so. They are so deep in the trees that they can't see how much Myspace can help smaller bands, and artist discovery.

But the bands can certainly choose not to release their material in a way that restricts distribution. If you're a garage band looking for attention, you've got every mechanism in the world to put that music out there in a way that will not, cannot, get anyone in trouble for spreading it around.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Sue Sue Sue by canuck57 · 2006-11-17 14:05 · Score: 1

Sue Sue Sue, I love you!

More pertinent is once all these fat lazy dinosaurs finish with each other we will get some real entertainment and not another farcing sitcom.

I guess Google scares Universal, cowards.

MySpace, big piranha are after YOU!

You don't thing Google isn't getting into entertainment in a bigway do you? Got old news, they are...

Universal Music are getting Zune Money by linuxci · 2006-11-17 14:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember Universal are getting money off Microsoft for every Zune sold. Perhaps this deal was done in order to give them a bit more money to go after Google. Just like MS did with their SCO Linux licences.

I don't know why so many people are lenient on MS, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and all that... MS have fooled many people, many times but some people associate anything bad said against them as coming from a zealot.

Personally I think their track record means they deserve to be thought of badly, they have to prove us wrong not the other way round.

Re:Universal Music are getting Zune Money by linuxci · 2006-11-17 14:50 · Score: 1

I'm tired, everytime I read MySpace I was thinking of YouTube. Both sites that I don't frequent very regularly.
Re:Universal Music are getting Zune Money by lilfields · 2006-11-17 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would Universal go after Google? Myspace is owned by News Corp...which just so happens to own rival network and movie studio Fox. Google's Eric Schmidt sits on the board of Apple...Apple has i-tunes...Universal sells videos/music on i-tunes. This law suit has little to do with video, but to do with music that people upload for profile songs. Myspace saw this coming as they added music fingerprinting. Myspace will get a slap on the wrist, and be forced to enforce rules that should have been enforced to begin with. I know plenty of people who will go to a Myspace page just to listen to the music on it. It's like a form of radio, but Universal sees no cut, and Myspace reaps the profits from their mix of advertising. YouTube does not have this problem, at least in my eyes...too many deals have been inked for Universal to suddenly attack Google.
Re:Universal Music are getting Zune Money by quanticle · 2006-11-17 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fact is, most people are completely unaware of the track record regarding Microsoft's intellectual property claims. And, as for lenient, you have to be lenient when you're locked into a proprietary platform with increasingly steep costs for switching.

Most people dislike Windows. They dislike that its an insecure platform. They dislike that its hardware requirements seem to increase dramatically with every iteration. They dislike the fact that the install slows down over time to the point that a system takes nearly twice as long to boot at 1 year old, versus when it was new. However, Windows is what comes on the computer and what's supported by the retailers and computer support shops. Linux? Its fine for us geeks who are accustomed to having to support our own hardware. However, the average consumer is going to be turned off by Linux when they hear that it isn't supported by <large computer store> or when they find that <tax/accounting program> doesn't work.

What about Apple? Looking at Apple's hardware (especially after the Intel switch) one sees that you could get the same hardware for a lower price when ordering from Dell. The fact that Apple's software is better doesn't help all that much when you need to make a large upfront investment in hardware to get some potential benefit from the software.

--
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Re:Universal Music are getting Zune Money by dangitman · 2006-11-17 19:06 · Score: 1

What about Apple? Looking at Apple's hardware (especially after the Intel switch) one sees that you could get the same hardware for a lower price when ordering from Dell.
Actually, in many cases the equivalent hardware from Apple is cheaper than buying it from Dell these days.
The fact that Apple's software is better doesn't help all that much when you need to make a large upfront investment in hardware to get some potential benefit from the software.
But it makes a big difference in making judgements about Apple vs. Microsoft. I'm not sure how you're argument is relevant to the topic of discussion. Whether Apple is more or less expensive makes no difference to whether Apple or Microsoft is the more "evil" company, or about who makes the best software.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Universal Music are getting Zune Money by zigziggityzoo · 2006-11-17 19:11 · Score: 1

Remember Universal are getting money off Microsoft for every Zune sold. Perhaps this deal was done in order to give them a bit more money to go after Google. Just like MS did with their SCO Linux licences. So, they got an extra $20. What's that gonna get them, another 30 seconds with their lawyers?

--
Zing!

Just sue the Internet by Ryan+Mallon · 2006-11-17 14:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Universal Music, RIAA, etc should stop thinking so small. All this pirated, or copyright infringing content is on the Internet right? Why not just sue the Internet and get it over with ;-).

Re:Just sue the Internet by The+MAZZTer · 2006-11-17 14:42 · Score: 1

I like to imagine them discussing this excitedly with their legal teams, dollar signs in their eyes, only to be crestfallen as the lawyers break the news that you can't sue the Internet because it isn't the property of any one person or group.
Re:Just sue the Internet by troll+-1 · 2006-11-17 14:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe they should sue DARPA.
Re:Just sue the Internet by h2g2bob · 2006-11-17 15:44 · Score: 1

I thought that was the RIAA's plan all along...
Re:Just sue the Internet by zotz · 2006-11-18 02:15 · Score: 1

"Why not just sue the Internet and get it over with ;-)."

Al Gore doesn't have enough moola? ~;-) macaroni

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

A battle of equals by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-11-17 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least this one will be a battle of equals. One corporate titan against another. The interesting copyright issues that need to be decided here can be fully briefed on a full and complete record. That is a plus.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:A battle of equals by benicillin · 2006-11-17 15:16 · Score: 1

ray - you make a good point, we really need these kinds of battles to be decided in the courtroom to set a precedent. this way we will know where the law stands. all of these agreements before anyone sues or out of court settlements just avoid the issue. im just worried this one will go the same way

--
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Re:A battle of equals by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-11-18 03:58 · Score: 1

Why should you worry? It's in a good court. There will be good lawyers representing My Space. They will have all the time and all the resources to make a good argument. No reason to think we will wind up with anything other than a sensible result and sensible rulings.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:A battle of equals by PHPfanboy · 2006-11-18 06:02 · Score: 1

Ray - couple of questions for you: 1) Any idea why it's UMG who are always suing? What's with the other 3 majors? 2) How do these law suits bubble up? Do you think it's a business objective looking for more revenue streams? Is it UMG's lawyers pro-actively pushing a list of targets?

--
29 mpg. YMMV.
Re:A battle of equals by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-11-18 11:20 · Score: 1

1. It's all 4 majors. UMG no more or less than the others.

2. I don't know how they bubble up... I just know that they are targeting the wrong people.

3. It's the RIAA's lawyers, not UMG's lawyers, who are involved, and it's not the lawyers that are controlling it, it's the RIAA. The lawyers on this case are attack dogs. They attack who they're told to attack, and don't stand up to their clients at all. Good lawyers don't just follow orders. These lawyers just follow orders. I don't know how they live with themselves, suing children, disabled people, people who never used computers, people on welfare, students. It's unbelievable.

4. What do they think they're accomplishing? I'm sure it's not the revenue stream; they lose money on litigated cases; they lose money on default judgments; and they make a little money on the settlements, just enough to cover the costs of their campaign. I'm convinced that their actual goal is something they don't mention publicly -- to try to monopolize the online digital music field. (See, e.g. counterclaims in Arista v. LimeWire. I don't think they will accomplish their goal, and I think that their litigation campaign is actually increasing, rather than diminishing, their competition, as they've succeeded in creating a whole new breed of music consumer -- those specifically looking for non-RIAA music. See my growing list of sources for non-RIAA music, which I call Liberated Music.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:A battle of equals by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2006-11-19 04:10 · Score: 1

I didn't realize you were asking about the MySpace case in particular. I thought you were talking about the RIAA v. Consumer cases. I do not know anything about the lawyers handling the MySpace case, so my opinions of the RIAA's lawyers should not be extended to them, unless they happen to be the same lawyers, which I doubt.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Monopoly by force? by EaglemanBSA · 2006-11-17 14:21 · Score: 1

Seems like a lot of these big companies are using their litigious prowess to force smaller, innovative companies into mergers they wouldn't otherwise agree to....doesn't much seem right to me.

--
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?

Re:Monopoly by force? by Wild+Wizard · 2006-11-17 15:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

You must of missed the memo or the previous post in this story.

MySpace is owned by News Corp one of the largest media companies on the face of the planet.

There are no small companies or individuals involved in this lawsuit.

http://www.newscorp.com/investor/index.html
News Corporation (NYSE: NWS, NWS.A; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) had total assets as of June 30, 2006 of approximately US$57 billion and total annual revenues of approximately US$25 billion.

Myspace to russia with love by zoftie · 2006-11-17 14:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

They should move myspace servers to russia. Look they can't even stop all out piracy, why do you think they'd care about some teens posting imitations of britney spears?
Or elsewhere, where there is no copyright, enforcable one. Get a few of those Sun containers and ship them around the world.

Re:Myspace to russia with love by dangitman · 2006-11-17 19:10 · Score: 1

Why would they do that? News Corp is a huge company that has great stakes in copyright laws. They wouldn't want an anarchic system. They want to sue people over copies of The Simpsons as much as the music companies want to sue over copies of Britney.
Furthermore, being a US-based (formerly Australian) company, moving the servers to Russia would probably not limit their legal liability.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Re:Im suing myspace too... by zoftie · 2006-11-17 14:25 · Score: 1

Got to bring home bacon somehow....

Sounds like a trend... by JoeCommodore · 2006-11-17 14:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Make a licensing/IP agreement then sue everone else.

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield

I have to wonder... by no+reason+to+be+here · 2006-11-17 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

is this about trying to get a licensing agreement, or are they maybe thinking they could destroy a website that has proved to be an excellent avenue for unsigned and indie musicians to get exposure?

--
my pet machine

Heh by Kylere · 2006-11-17 14:51 · Score: 1

It is amazing, at a certain point the comglomerates will pass around dollars via lawsuits. The winners each year will post larger revenues and their shareholders will cheer, the losers will point to it being inevitable and the shareholders will be appeased, then one legal cycle away the plantiffs and defendents will change tables.

It is like Web-boom Accounting Practices, or Enron Math!

1. Do anything
2. Be sued
3. Lose money, adjust taxes
4. Sue
5. Profit

Now by NineNine · 2006-11-17 14:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wow. More myopic IT people. If some of you guys would read about things OTHER than IT, you'd realize that this stuff happens every single day in all industries, all over the world. These lawsuits are in no way, shape, or form, unique. The sports companies (they're not commissions... they're private companies that are treated like public institutions) are very, very sue-happy.

Re:Now by Schemat1c · 2006-11-17 20:22 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Wow. More myopic IT people. If some of you guys would read about things OTHER than IT, you'd realize that this stuff happens every single day in all industries, all over the world. These lawsuits are in no way, shape, or form, unique. The sports companies (they're not commissions... they're private companies that are treated like public institutions) are very, very sue-happy.

The fact that it happens everywhere makes it okay? A bunch of "myopic" IT people see a pattern as their/our minds are trained to do and point it out. Should it be ignored simply because it happens in every industry?

Change has to begin somewhere and for the last couple of decades us IT folk seemed to have been able to affect much change in society. But of course, what would us nearsighted geeks be able to figure out anyhow? All we did was build a communications network that spans the globe and allows even the most insignificant person to have access to information that less than a generation ago was the domain of governments and billionaires. What the heck would we know? I can only wish that we were as smart and well informed as you are.

--

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
Re:Now by zotz · 2006-11-18 02:04 · Score: 1

"All we did was build a communications network that spans the globe and allows even the most insignificant person to have access to information that less than a generation ago was the domain of governments and billionaires."

See, that's where you go wrong, that network of tubes was invented by political types and put together by plumbers. Get real!

~;-)

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Re:Now by NineNine · 2006-11-18 06:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Big deal. Plumbers created and maintain basic sanitation. Give somebody a choice between having a toilet and having an Internet connection, and the toilet is going to be chosen every single time.

I wouldn't, however, expect plumbers to change our entire legal and political system any more than I would expect IT people to. Although with that being said, I've met several plumbers that are more in touch with the real world than most IT people could ever hope to be.
Re:Now by bhiestand · 2006-11-18 06:32 · Score: 1

Give somebody a choice between having a toilet and having an Internet connection, and the toilet is going to be chosen every single time.

Followed by...
Although with that being said, I've met several plumbers that are more in touch with the real world than most IT people could ever hope to be.

Obviously you haven't met very many IT people. Most of the IT people I know would rather give up the toilet.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Re:Now by cbreaker · 2006-11-18 19:16 · Score: 1

AMEN. You can take a shit outside and bury it, but you can't use a shovel to get you on Slashdot.

Toilets are overrated.

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Re:Now by soloes · 2006-11-20 03:25 · Score: 1

toilet paper on the otherhand...

--
New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!

obCryptonomicon quote by ewe2 · 2006-11-17 14:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

"You should never forget what a fundamentally strong position we are in. We are like the sexiest girl in the world. And all of this bad behavior on the Dentist's part is just his way of showing that he wants to mate with us."
"And control us."

--
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer

Extortion? You have no idea.... by 8127972 · 2006-11-17 15:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Here's how the phone call went....

MySpace: Hello?

Universal: MySpace? Nice website you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

MySpace: What?

Universal: You could make this "problem" go away if you gave us a "donation." Otherwise, something bad is going to happen. Capiche?

--
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.

circumvention of our legal system by benicillin · 2006-11-17 15:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

the most interesting thing about these pre-suing agreements that have been arranged (ie. the youtube payout) is that these companies are circumventing the legal system. originally you have a legal battle that ends in a decision. then we started seeing one company sue another but settle out of court (so that no decision on the issue could be rendered by the judicial system.) now we are simply seeing arrangements made before anyone sues, the grandest way of avoiding any real legal decision on the issue. very interesting how they work things out without even deciding if they fall within the laws of the country. we'll never know if it's any kind of infringement, cause they'll never get to court in the first place.

--
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud

Re:circumvention of our legal system by slapys · 2006-11-17 16:11 · Score: 1

Now we are simply seeing arrangements made before anyone sues, the grandest way of avoiding any real legal decision on the issue.

Hmm, this sounds familiar. Novell and Microsoft, anyone?

What is especially interesting about this development is how the corporations in question circumvent not only the entire American judicial branch, but also the executive and legislative branches. M$ has remained largely untouched by the many antitrust lawsuits brought against them, at least here in America. And of course, our big-business friendly government isn't going to touch any of these companies. If the U.S. government raised as much concern over M$'s behavior as the EU has, perhaps we would see some real "checks and balances."
Re:circumvention of our legal system by Peyna · 2006-11-17 16:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the many goals of the legal system is to encourage people to fix their problems without going to court. A huge percentage of criminal AND civil cases are settled without a trial. Many of them never even get close. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

--
What?
Re:circumvention of our legal system by benicillin · 2006-11-17 17:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

on the other hand, a case heard by lower courts and brought up by the supreme court is a perfect example of when the justice system wants an issue cleared up. i understand your point, but i feel that sometimes a decision by the court system is necessary; even if it's just reaching out to the legislation to clear the problem up, it helps.

--
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Re:circumvention of our legal system by jovius · 2006-11-17 23:05 · Score: 1

Isn't it a problem that you can buy yourself out in certain cases if you present enough money and authority ? It's not an equal system for everybody, and certain entities or persons willingly use it to just for the financial benefit, at their price. Universal is seeking $150000 for each song and video posted on the site. If the basis of these claims is never researched and tested in the courts, the system will go on forever by the fiddle of the corporations. The court becomes a financial tool. The corporations need to be kept in check, for the integrity of the juridical system.
Re:circumvention of our legal system by Peyna · 2006-11-18 02:58 · Score: 1

We could always raise taxes to support appointed counsel for civil cases. I have a strong feeling that will not happen anytime soon.

--
What?

Isn't it obvious? by XdevXnull · 2006-11-17 16:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "little guy" in this case is the legion of 13 and 14 year old kids who are uploading videos they saw on MTV.

--
"I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"

Interesting thought. by lordvalrole · 2006-11-17 16:13 · Score: 1

Well, you want to know where the money is going from gootube to pay off the copyrighted material on youtube? Assuming Mark Cuban's source is right and google/youtube paid $50 million to each of the head media corporations then that would explain the recent lawsuits. You know, the only way MPAA and RIAA are going to loose is when we stop feeding the cash cow to make it happen. Google is handing them major money to go after more companies and more individuals. Why can't someone pull a Fight Club sequence on their ass and be done with it?

Slashdot good vs evil decision by imunfair · 2006-11-17 16:17 · Score: 3, Funny

These are the sacred rules of Slashdot to decide which of the two opposing parties is actually the good one in any given fight. If both parties are equal, proceed to the next step.

1. Small business = good, big business = bad
2. open source = good, proprietary = bad
3. rootkits = bad
4. suing people = bad
5. lots of patents = bad
6. internet related = good
7. given all above items are equal, put on wizard's cap and role 16-sided die for one party. If it is even they are good; odd is evil. first poster to declare their results determines the outcome unless they make a typo - in which case the first person calling them an idiot or troll will determine the good/evil ratio of the two opposing parties.

PARADOX! by XnavxeMiyyep · 2006-11-17 16:20 · Score: 3, Funny

I want MySpace to lose money, but I don't want Universal Music to get money by suing people.... well, I guess if I support lawyers, then I win no matter what!

--
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.

Re:Im suing myspace too... by kfg · 2006-11-17 16:21 · Score: 2, Funny

for blindness. . . made me take an olive fork and start stabbing.

Good to hear from you. Give my love to your mother. - Dad

KFG

Are they suing MySpace or Newscorp? by assassinator42 · 2006-11-17 16:22 · Score: 2

Who's named as the defendant? "MySpace", Intermix, or News Corp?

Question by pembo13 · 2006-11-17 16:31 · Score: 1

What are they claiming NySpace infringed upon? I've never heard of any MySpace ad on radio or tv...so it can be that... Doesn't someone or entitity have to use something to infringe upon it? Assuming it is about music...how does anything music go about getting uptight about copying? Music is all about copying and modifing.

--
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft

Re:Question by timmarhy · 2006-11-17 16:52 · Score: 1

i doubt if you really questioned them, they wouldn't be able to name a single specific case of infringement and show evidence to back it up.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....

Your forgot something... by ColdWetDog · 2006-11-17 18:09 · Score: 1

As long as your making lists

0. Microsoft = Bad
0.1 Apple = Good
0.2 SCO = Really Bad
0.3 IBM = depends on yesterday's barometric pressure in Terra Del Fuego
0.4 George Bush = So absolutely, completely friken bad that you just want to spit

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Woops! by one_red_eye · 2006-11-17 18:31 · Score: 1

Wrong article...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/17/22 52246

Mod -1 for not paying attention.

Re:Uni CEO Doug Morris is Jewish - coincidence? by hazah · 2006-11-17 20:47 · Score: 1

You're not only part jewish... you're also fully stupid. Honestly... wtf is this racist crap.

That does it. by unity100 · 2006-11-18 00:45 · Score: 1

From now on i see record labels, universal emi and such as public enemys. i place them in the same position as the aristocracy before french revolution.

--
Read radical news here

Plagiarism by bazorg · 2006-11-18 01:36 · Score: 1

IMHO, the Mafia should sue these Universal, RIAA and MPAA people for copying their business practices, and then should gather them all in a dark warehouse, break their fucking thumbs with a hammer, then kill them all. problem solved.

Re:Plagiarism by ady1 · 2006-11-18 02:16 · Score: 1

So mainly you are saying that they should commit suicide?

Safe haven? by Numberboy · 2006-11-18 02:38 · Score: 1

Isn't MySpace protected by the Safe Haven section of the DMCA? It was my understanding that YouTube was safe because it was hosting user-submitted content, so wouldn't MySpace be the same?

They're liable because they're actively helping by Garwulf · 2006-11-18 02:47 · Score: 1

Actually, from what the article says, the lawsuit does have merit.

Myspace isn't being sued because their users are pirating, but because they are actively assisting in that piracy by reformatting the music file for the user. That makes them a participant rather than just a carrier.

Whether this has legal merit is for a judge to decide, but from first glance of the article and the details in it, I think Myspace may actually be in some trouble here.

--
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive

Re:They're liable because they're actively helping by KDR_11k · 2006-11-18 09:35 · Score: 1

I don't think an automated system that is not infringing by itself counts as actively assisting. After all, providing a server to put files onto is just as active.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

NO doubt by superflyguy · 2006-11-18 08:00 · Score: 1

If MySpace were to sign a similar agreement with the label, there is little doubt that the lawsuit would disappear.

If they enter a contract saying they won't be sued, they probably won't be? Legally, we call that a settlement, and you can't continue a suit once you've settled it.

Specially when the little guy is poor. by jotaeleemeese · 2006-11-20 06:14 · Score: 1

Because just settling for him just to say guilty, is a great thing.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

94 of 116 comments (clear)