Slashdot Mirror
EMI Says Online File Storage Is Illegal
WiglyWorm writes "MP3tunes CEO Michael Robertson sent out an email to all users of the online music backup and place-shifting service MP3tunes.com, asking them to help publicize EMI's ridiculous and ignorant lawsuit against the company. EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service."
> As a record store owner, My business faces ruin.
Tough. The pervasive use of automotive vehicles has put a lot of blacksmiths out of business. But would the world really be a better place if we had stuck to using horse drawn carts?
An oldie, but a goodie.
>>>"People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago."
Well then, supplement your CDs with sales of MP3 singles. The singles market is going through the roof, and if you provided your customers with a place to buy and download MP3 singles, you'd probably be a popular stop for the teen and 20-something market.
ADJUST to the needs of your customers.
If they are demanding singles, don't hand them CDs.
Give them singles; give them what they want.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
There is no fair use about this.
EMI is saying when you upload a file to an on-line site you are lossing posestion of the file and it is entering the possestion of the site you uploaded the file too. It the uploader is still claiming rights to the file then a copy was made. Making an additional copy of the music is a right that only EMI can give. Never mind that all the music upload was not from EMI.
mp3tunes case was that they were not sharing the files, only available to the uploader, and they did nothing with the files except provide backup protection and allow the uploader purchaser access to them.
The lower court has already decided on this in favor of mp3tunes. This was back in March, the item released today was more in the area of a press release.
Then as you say this will boil down to laws not keeping up with the way technology is going. Chances are in most states in the US and most other countries EMI is probably right in the law.
The problem is run into in the nature of the service being offered. This isn't merely storage, they are distributing the works.
... no plurals involved.
:-( You really don't get it do you ?
... a URL with "mp3" in it does not automatically equate to "file sharing".
They are NOT distributing it !!!
Distribute - verb (used with object), -uted, -uting.
1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.
3. to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, esp. in a specified region or area.
4. to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.
5. to divide into distinct phases: The process was distributed into three stages.
6. to divide into classes: These plants are distributed into 22 classes.
They are not dividing the file into pieces, nor sharing it amongst any other parties. They are merely serving it back to the original owner when requested. I would imagine that definitions 3 and 4 could apply, but ONLY in the context of the original owner
Your argument is like accusing a bank of "distributing" your money when you pay a cheque into the bank and then use an ATM at a different branch to withdraw the SAME money that BELONGS TO YOU !!!
The way it seems to run, this isn't a common carrier thing that is being run in good faith, like say any random hosting company, this is a company that is advertising that it will distribute copies of music that you bought from someone else to you on any device you want.
There's that word again
That changes the rules, they can't do that without a license, even if you have 5000 copies at home.
When I purchase a CD, fair use says I may make backup copies for my own personal use. It does not dictate that those backup copies MUST remain within my own home, otherwise anyone with a cassette tape in their car that they copied from a CD they own would also be "breaking the law" everytime the car left the driveway.
If I choose to put my copies in a bank, they remain my property, and the bank does not "distribute" them to ANY third party. Likewise if I choose to store my data in an online file storage repository, and said repository ONLY returns that data to me when I supply MY username and password, it is exactly the same thing.
Don't let your shortsightedness blind you to the reality
Next thing you know, they'll be suing Apple because the Time Machine app makes copies of copyrighted music!
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Do noooot feed the troooooollls! Sheesh, this troll is older than me. There: I did my best =P
---
As a table dance club owner, My business faces ruin. table dance sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as table dances as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My club has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the club about 12 years ago. It was one of those clubs that play obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My table dance club specialized in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't play sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked table dance club, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase table dances without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer table dances. Why is no one buying table dances? Are people not interested in lust? Do people prefer to watch TV, see porn films, read erotic books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three geek world wide is watches porn. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of porn in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the table dance industry, from dancers, to Djs to table dance club owners my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike porn, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this table dance in the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the table dance industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase (they ticket for the table dance), I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my club - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the table dance club industry, then the table dance club industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable table dance club will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the table dance tickets to begin with, then they won't be able to watch them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.
I have just written a letter to the TIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
And what about people working very hard at off-shore oil platforms? Can we use them? I'm pretty sure that their wage is somewhat lower than the average artist on tour, but they have to do it anyway.
Not to mention the military, far from home months on end. And don't get me started on the average wage here.
So poor artists with their luxury hotel rooms, first-class plane seats, 50 foot long limousines and multi million dollar contracts can't stand tour pressure? Too bad. Makes me cry.
The buggy whip makers came out alright - they changed markets to the S&M/B&D crowds.
Their own product?
Oh how many musicians sell their own music out of their own store?
Please. Music store owners don't make the music they sell; they are a retailer of another person's product.
The smart ones diversify or change to a different product.
How many butchers went out of business when the ability for frozen pre-cut meat came on the market?
Seriously. Look at the number of butchers in your town and then figure out the numbers there were years ago before refrigeration.
People want to listen to the music and are willing to pay for their own copy of that music. The only fact that has changed is that we no longer need the bits of plastic to physically carry the copy.
Then not only are you an old-fashioned developer, you're a lousy old-fashioned developer with no knowledge of the wider world your software is operating within. Security and legal concerns (especially legal concerns) trump the $0.00078 savings, by your estimated storage price, per copy of "Toxic". This is especially true when the architecture you're discussing would cost more time and money to implement than the safer version, what with the necessity of acoustic fingerprinting or some other technology to make sure that User1's "Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3" is the same as User2's "Toxic - Britney Spears (ub3r h0t ch1ck).mp3" is the same as User3's "251 - BS - TOXIC.mp3".
Please, by all that's holy, tell me you're just over-simplifying for the masses. Actually, don't tell me that, because there's only two options here:
- 1. You're over simplifying a complicated technology, just like the idiots at EMI/SonyBMG/ do to confuse the non-technical people judging a case, or
- 2. You're not even a developer (or are someone who's written a half-dozen PHP scripts for their buddy's website and thinks they're a developer) and are just blowing smoke on this topic.
Either way, this absurd and technically inappropriate answer isn't doing anything except to muddy the waters. Please leave that to the professionals at EMI.