Capitol Records Flooded Internet With MP3s, Says MP3Tunes CEO

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In court papers filed in New York in Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the CEO of MP3Tunes, Michael Robertson, has accused the plaintiffs EMI, Capitol Records, and other EMI record labels of flooding the internet with free MP3s of their songs for promotional purposes, 'free to everyone (except, apparently, MP3tunes).' His 10-page declaration (PDF) provides exact details of specific song files, including the URLs from which they are being distributed free of charge, both by paid content distributors, and by EMI itself from its own web sites."

Comments

What am I missing here???

[NecroPuppy]

Aren't the songs EMI / Capitol's to do with as they wish?

Including give them away, by whatever methods they choose?

Obviously, I'm missing a legal facet here; what is it?

Re:What am I missing here???

[Phoenix Rising]

Nope, you've got it right.

If Capitol Records holds the Copyright, then they can do whatever they want and still control the distribution channel.

Re:What am I missing here???

[BrianRoach]

what's a reasonable assumption?

That copyright law still applies? That would be my "reasonable" assumption.

Unless they grant you the right to re-distribute their copyrighted works, you don't have one.

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

Re:What am I missing here???

[corsec67]

So someone could start a service pointing a user to where they can legally download MP3s? That would work in this case, since Capitol Records is distributing the MP3s themselves.

Re:What am I missing here???

[taco8982]

I think what you're missing is spelled out fairly effectively in the linked declaration. EMI sued MP3Tunes not for redistributing their IP, but for linking to locations that did. More specifically, they required not only that they remove specific links to specific songs as they had done initially, but that they remove links to every EMI song in existence claiming that they had not authorized ANY of their songs to be distributed online. MP3Tunes declined to do this and was sued. This, however, gives examples of several places where EMI HAD authorized their songs to be distributed as MP3s and thus not every link to every song they own is an infringing link.

Re:What am I missing here???

[Just Some Guy]

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

You're 100% correct, but I think it'd be darn difficult to show damages. A certain famous case comes to mind where BellSouth claimed Craig Neidorf stole documents worth $79,449. As it turns out, they offered the documents for sale (from their catalog, no less) for $13. When this came out at trial, BellSouth wisely dropped the case.

Re:What am I missing here???

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think what you're missing is spelled out fairly effectively in the linked declaration. EMI sued MP3Tunes not for redistributing their IP, but for linking to locations that did. More specifically, they required not only that they remove specific links to specific songs as they had done initially, but that they remove links to every EMI song in existence claiming that they had not authorized ANY of their songs to be distributed online. MP3Tunes declined to do this and was sued. This, however, gives examples of several places where EMI HAD authorized their songs to be distributed as MP3s and thus not every link to every song they own is an infringing link.

And the accompanying memorandum of law gives you the context in which the declaration was being submitted.

Re:What am I missing here???

[AK Marc]

When copyright applies, the Right of First Sale still trumps it. Thus, you can download an MP3 from an authorised free site, then sell it. You can download it 100,000 times and sell those 100,000 copies. So, if you want to be a distributor, just download the file as many times as you want for free, then sell or give away those copies. As long as you delete them when you transfer ownership, then you have violated no law.

There is no implicit right to re-distribute even if you are given a copy of something for free.

Sure there is. Plenty of people got the Cue-Cat for free and sold it. They had the implicit right to re-distribute it after having gotten it for free. That's law, and it trumps copyright. Yes, they don't have the law to get one free Cue-Cat and make 10,000 copies they then distribute, but if they found a way to get 10,000 of them for free, then distributing them is perfectly legal.

Re:What am I missing here???

[Sloppy]

True but irrelevant. Apparently EMI is suing Robertson for the initial act of EMI distributing the file. There is no "re-" prefix on that verb.

Analogy: You tell someone to go to a bookstore (a new one, not even a used one, let's say) and buy a book, they follow your advice and purchase the book, and then the copyright holder of the book sues you for telling people to buy the book. We're talking about the first sale itself, not even a disagreement about what can be done after the first sale. Wow.

Re:What am I missing here???

[spazdor]

You absolutely, certainly have the right to give something you downloaded to someone else, provided you do not also keep a copy. This does not violate copyright in any way.

Re:What am I missing here???

[Just Some Guy]

"Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling, available from Gutenberg. I think he pasted parts of it to Phrack, which he published at the time.

Re:What am I missing here???

[cpt kangarooski]

The First-sale doctrine applies only to tangible property. It does not apply to an mp3 you downloaded.

Well, that's not entirely correct.

The reason why downloading can be infringement is because when you download a work, you necessarily fix the intangible work in some tangible medium, e.g. RAM, or a hard drive, as you do it. Fixing a work in a tangible medium constitutes reproduction under the copyright law, and reproduction is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

However, first sale applies to all lawfully made copies (a copy is a tangible medium that the work is fixed in; when you download something to your hard drive, the hard drive becomes a copy of that thing, along with whatever else the hard drive is), regardless of who made them. Any person who owns a lawfully made copy may, for example, sell that copy, without permission from the copyright holder. The statute is at 17 USC 109 if you'd like to look at it.

So if you were given permission by the copyright holder to download some music and fix it in any medium you wished, you could just start burning CDs and selling them, and it would fall under first sale. I suppose you could also just give away your hard drive or something, but generally people don't like to do that. However, it's more common that the copyright holder permits you to download the music only if you agree not to distribute copies of that music to other people. In that circumstance, so long as you don't sell, or give away copies, the copies you make are lawfully made. If you do sell them, then they're no longer lawfully made (you've exceeded the scope of the permission to download them in the first place) and so first sale doesn't apply.

I'm sure that folks here can see some parallels to the GPL: you can copy, distribute, and modify GPLed software as you like, so long as you obey the instructions of the GPL to make source available; fail to do that, and you can't have lawfully done those other things.

Re:What am I missing here???

[sjames]

IANL but I think the idea here is that you can't really claim to have been grievously harmed if someone hands out free copies of a song you're already handing out for free. It could even be argued that they saved you some bandwidth charges.

Here we go.....

[zappepcs]

I am thinking that 2009 is going to be a very interesting year for the RIAA's legal team. Who hasn't heard/read about the latest foibles from the record companies and I'm willing to bet that this one won't be the last.

Monopolistic practices? Unfair trade practices? Come on now! The RIAA and it's members would NEVER do anything like that. How many here wonder how many tune/files were seeded to P2P networks by the RIAA members themselves never mind paid third parties so that their 'investigative' group could actually find file sharers? Can you say Enron? Yeah, I know it's not even close to the same thing, but I am betting it breaks open as big in the news and it's after affects when the real truth of what big record labels have been up to for the last 5 years.

Take what Sony did. There is an example of how unscrupulous they really are. Imagine the money that they have and they don't have employees that know it was not just morally bad, but illegal? Ignorance of the law is not acceptable in court.... unless you have several hundred million dollars to buy things for legislators holidays and such.

Like my great grandfather used to say... "The shit you see when you don't have a gun... damn"

He was of course talking about deer on the side of the road, which is close to road kill, and I hope that is what 2009 will label the RIAA, so it kind of fits.

Re:Here we go.....

[danlor]

orly? Price fixing? Extortion? Abuse of power? Collusion?

Does this open your eyes?

Re:Here we go.....

[zappepcs]

I'm curious. How do you explain the root kit on Sony CDs with ignorance or stupidity? Anyone that stupid should not be in business. period. The Sony legal team has enough experience to protect trademarks, read the news, and study the laws. Any software release that was not run through the legal team opens the company to unknown litigation costs. When you have that much to lose, being stupid is not an option.

Enron, as I mentioned them, is but one example of a big business going out of their way to screw over customers and employees alike. I don't think it's so hard to imagine that executives at Sony and other record companies are just as immoral and unscrupulous. In fact, it's rather easy. Yes, you can go ahead and keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I won't and there are a lot of people feeling the same way. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... or if you like, once bitten, twice shy. Oh, then there is an old fav: A leopard does not change his spots. If you are familiar with them, Metallica has a song about a scorpion which seems rather appropriate.

If you believe that this is about enforcing copyrights... I'm aghast. After all that the RIAA and members have done, now saying who can have free downloads? That's not copyright, it's tantamount to saying 'here is a free MP3, but you can't use it for anything other than listening alone to it at home. A completely unrealistic expectation under current and all foreseeable copyright laws.

If Ford gave you a free car but then said you can't put any bumper stickers on it, would you tell them to fuck off? Anyone else can put bumper stickers on the free cars we gave them, but not you! This is the thing about public domain. Once a thing is released to the public domain you have lost control of how it is then distributed.

There is little if any difference between reality here and having a site that has advertisements on it that points (with deep links) to sites that have free MP3 files, although that is a bit cheap, using someone else's bandwidth for the actual downloads. Point remains. If it's free for downloading, it doesn't matter one iota how the downloader finds the link.

Regardless of how unsavory this company might actually be, this is wrong of EMI, and should they win it would set a very bad precedent for copyrights, patents, and many other things with regard to the public domain and 'things' released to the public domain with no license. You can indeed follow a URL link to the actual file and not be presented a EULA or license, so whether they intended it that way or were just stupid, they are free for downloading and free of licensing, and therefore EMI has lost distribution rights of any kind.

Para 15 says it all really:
                              In short, EMI has engaged in active marketing of its music directly and through hundreds if not thousands of online music partners. As a consequence, thousands of EMI songs are available on the Internet for free download with its authorization. Yet EMI is seeking to impose liability upon MP3tunes because it runs a search engine that links to many of the same files. MP3tunes respectfully requests that EMIâ(TM)s motion to dismiss be denied.

Re:Here we go.....

[cpt kangarooski]

"I own the copyright to that music, I grant you a license to listen to it and do anything with it you wish as long as you don't give it away or try to sell it". Pretty standard license and actually I think encapsulated in the copyright law itself.

Hm, sounds problematic to me. Copyright doesn't include an exclusive right to listen to music. The copyright holder can control making copies of the music, making derivative works based on the music, performing the music, broadcasting the music, etc. but not actually listening to it. That's free.

The closest the copyright holder could get would be to not let anyone else have copies of the music, and to require anyone who wanted to listen to have to pay a fee to do so. This would basically be providing a venue -- the same thing that a concert hall does -- and would really have nothing to do with copyright. Charging admission to venues works just as well with public domain materials (e.g. paying money to go see an uncopyrighted movie in a theater).

The other stuff though; the 'do anything with it you wish' is far more interesting. That would permit people to, say, make derivative works based on the music (e.g. a music video), and with the paltry limitations, to publicly perform it (e.g. on MTV) or rent out copies of it.

The copyright law also says that you must be granted rights explicitly rather than assuming them.

No, it says no such thing. In fact, copyright licenses are probably more often implied than express. For example, your post to which I am responding is (probably) copyrighted. You didn't expressly give me permission to download it (as I necessarily must simply in order to read it), but were you to take me to court over it, you'd surely lose, because your conduct in posting it to a public forum such as this granted me that right.

The law does say that exclusive licenses have to be written and signed by the licensor, though, so perhaps that's what you were thinking of.

If that also applies to advertising my goods then the location of the ones that I am giving away for free for certain purposes (usually promotional to a specific group) is mine to distribute as well.

Why would the location be copyrightable at all? Sounds like an uncopyrightable fact to me.

I don't grant you the right to figure out how to make the cars real and give them away, only I have the right to do that.

Well, you'd have to have that right. Certainly copyright only covers a few specific rights with regard to a work, leaving the rest to the public domain even during the copyright term (e.g. while not everyone has the right to print up new copies of a book, everyone has the right to read extant copies at will). I think the analogy does break down here -- patents require you to tell the world how to do it, if that's what the subject of the patent is. Trade secrets don't protect against reverse engineering, so anyone is free to apply their own brainpower to breaking your control over the secret by independently discovering it. And while we're all well aware of how perverted copyrights have become, traditionally they mainly tried to protect published works, not secret ones. (Of course, there is good reason to protect manuscripts that are intended to be published in the near future, lest pirates cut the author off at the pass, as it were, but it is important to keep this from being abused; if an author has no intent to publish, or is being ridiculously slow, then, setting aside whatever right of privacy implications might arise, copyright policy would favor the pirate; creative works are only good for the public when the public can get at them)

And no simply because it is available on a particular URL for download it is NOT free of licensing nor do you even have permission to download it.

True. Merely because a work can be accessed at a particular URL doesn't mean that everyone has the right to do so where it would infringe to do so (and since downloading is necessarily copying, permission or an

More nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an ex-MP3tunes employee. Michael Robertson is a scumbag. He's repeatedly fucked partners (we had a deal with Warner Music to sell physical CDs and provide the customer with MP3s instantly -- he decided to sell just the MP3s, so they got pissed off and shut us down the next day; driving away partners and shutting off legitimate business channels is a great way to fail), abused employees, etc. MP3tunes is down to 4 people from its height of 14, due to his complete and utter incompetence. Linspire is dead due to him stealing money (read Kevin Carmony's blog for all the dirty details, and there's far more that isn't there). SIPPhone is dying due to him not spending money on his companies and pocketing it instead.

As much as I support many of his efforts, he's a snake in the grass and everyone knows it now. There's not a single respectable company that's willing to come within a mile of him due to his previous actions, and this is his dying breath.

I can only hope this bankrupts him so he'll stop hurting people

P.S. When this lawsuit began, he posted on his blog about them trying to "take his minivan". He doesn't mention his massive ranch in San Diego, his Lexus (which cost about two of his (extremely underpaid) programmers' yearly salaries), or his $20M beach house in Del Mar. Fuck MR.

Re:More nonsense

[PCM2]

Michael Robertson is a scumbag.

I thought he sounded familiar. As parent mentions, here's a link to the blog of Kevin Carmony, former President and CEO of Linspire, for similar-sounding story.

First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds right to me. You can't just distribute a copyrighted work willy-nilly if you are not the copyright holder (or a licensee).

On the other hand, there is also the right of first sale, which says that if you purchase a copyrighted work, say a CD full of music, you have the right to sell that CD to someone else as long as no copies are made. I'm not an expert on this limitation on copyright, so I'm not sure how it works with digital non-software files. If I legally download a free MP3 file from a valid distributor without any kind of licensing agreement, is there a legal restriction that stops me from sending that file to someone else, provided that my file is also deleted?

Maybe "free" isn't considered a sale...

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[ubrgeek]

Maybe there are exceptions, but not usually. When I would do music reviews the CDs we received were VERY clearly labeled, "For Promotional Purposes Only. Not For Sale."

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[ckthorp]

The label could also say that you have cooties. Would you believe that too?

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read this?

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[whoever57]

Thinking further, this would suggest that you couldn't sell or give away a promotional CD given to you by a music label, which I'm sure you could. So I don't know if "free" is really material here...

There was a lawsuit about this and the eBay seller who was selling promotional CDs won the right to continue selling them.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[lysergic.acid]

and yet every label knows that 99% of the promo CDs they send out will just end up in the used bin at local record shops.

we try our best to mark promo CDs as such. record companies used to punch holes in the album covers of their LPs meant for promotion use or print "white label" records to distinguish them from the retail product. these days we just use sharpies to write "PROMO" on the covers, but it really is a futile effort. if you go to any mid-sized record store with a used/second-hand section, you'll still find tons of promo materials being sold.

occasionally we'll come upon our own promo CDs being sold at a record store, and in those situations we'll ask the owner to take them off the shelves or just buy them back. but as far as i know, it's not actually illegal to sell promo CDs.

and regarding the relevance of Capitol Records distributing free mp3s to this case, i think it has to do with the plaintiff's claim that MP3Tunes has "severely and irreparably [injured] Plaintiffs and other copyright holders by eroding legitimate sales of music through both traditional and online channels." i think those claims are dubious at best to begin with. but if Capitol Records is already distributing their own music all over the web where anyone is free to download it, then they can't really claim that MP3Tunes is eroding their sales simply by allowing their users to access their own uploaded music from any computer with an internet connection.

i mean, they might as well sue wireless router or S/PDIF cable manufacturers for illegally distributing copyrighted content. it's absurd. if i want to upload copyrighted content to my web server and access it from other computers, that is my right. this kind of "distribution" (if you can even call it that) should be protected under fair use, just like bringing a CD to a friend's house or even lending it to them.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[mabhatter654]

MP3Tunes claims to use fair-use rules to allow you to pipe your music where you want it. According to them you would put the music that you "own" into a "locker" and they would share it to you on a phone, iPod, or thru the web to work or school. According to them legally it's the rights to "your" copy that you are moving...

but the labels are suing them for charging for running a service to make sure the fair-use rules are followed and not rampant illegal file sharing. It's certainly a grey thing MP3Tunes is doing, but for the label to say MP3tunes is taking away profits, then offer the same music for free and no DRM.. but not to legit customers like iTunes or other MP3 services like emusic is a bit two faced. Going to court and asking for damages is out of line.

Re:First Sale Doctrine, maybe?

[mazarin5]

Adding to this, I think the crux of that case was that the promoter sent the CDs unsolicited through the postal service. The law, more or less, is that if you receive something in the mail unsolicited, it's yours to do want you want with, regardless of any sort of license or contract that comes with it. In order for terms to be enforceable, they have to be agreed upon before delivery.

In the eBay case, this was essential; as far as the court was concerned, the seller had auctioned up a regular CD, and the promotional no-resell terms were unenforceable because the CD was unsolicited.

It's even simpler than that.

[argent]

MP3Tunes wasn't even distributing the music.

All they were doing was providing links to where other entities (including, as it turns out, EMI) were distributing them.

They're saying "EMI told us to remove these links and said that they hadn't authorized any of this music to be downloaded, and look, here's where EMI was authorizing it..."

Free != free to redistribute

[BrianRoach]

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).

- Roach

Re:Free != free to redistribute

[Roskolnikov]

Which might lead to a point about providing links;

I checked the links on this doc, most work and only one asked me for any personal information. No click through, no shrink-wrap 'license' just the song presented in my browser. This might be the only complaint EMI might/should have with MP3Tunes, they are circumventing (theory) the presentation/context of this music. The larger gripe, and where EMI should be aimed, but for what ever reason they're not as they (the RIAA) seem to enjoy attacking customers and folks that make finding things easier (index services) are the non EMI folks also providing the music. I hate to put it this way but scumbags or not, MP3Tunes or Google, where does this kind of harassment end? I can find 'filez' just as easy with google as I can with any of the search sites.

IANAL (sounds like a new apple product, no?)

Re:Free != free to redistribute

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone gives you a copy of their copyrighted work doesn't mean you get to copy and redistribute it.

No shit.

The owner of the copyrighted work explicitly grants any and all rights regardless of how much they are charging for a copy of the work (even when they are giving it away for free).

- Roach

THEY WERE NOT REDISTRIBUTING IT. They were *linking* to content stored on Capitol/EMI servers, or servers owned by third parties (such as Akamai) for the purpose of distribution Capital/EMI content. The point that they're making in the court submission, if you bothered to read it, was that it was acceptable for parties (maybe Google) to link to it, but not MP3Tunes.

So, "a pox on both their houses"?

[argent]

Even if he's "a scumbag" that doesn't mean that EMI are angels. Sometimes there aren't any good guys.

Appears to be Accurate

[bill_mcgonigle]

I used these URL's (from the PDF) and they appear to be functional:

http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/lilru/dontilookgood/lil_ru_dont_i_look_good_cl.mp3
http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/beastieboys/misc/acapella/Car_Thief_A_Cappella.mp3?ewk13=1
http://capi001.edgeboss.net/download/capi001/doves/skystartsfalling/audio/skystartsfalling.mp3
http://angel.edgeboss.net/download/angel/seth_lakeman_audio/digitalep/king_and_country_128k.mp3
http://mute.edgeboss.net/download/mute/xx_teens/darlin_original.mp3
http://mute.edgeboss.net/download/mute/moby/mobylastnight_sampler.mp3
http://www.emichrysalis.co.uk/vincentvincentandthevillains/music/track0.mp3
http://emichrysalis.co.uk/herculesandloveaffair/downloads/16_11_07/Hercules_Theme.mp3
http://www.definitivejux.net/store/catalog-product/US-A4T-04-173-00.html
http://goldenhorse.co.nz/mp3s/Dont%20Wake%20Me%20Up.mp3
http://goldenhorse.co.nz/mp3s/Fish.mp3
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/sparklehorse/download.php?FILENAME=shadeandhoney.mp3&DOWNLOAD=1
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/mailers/morningrunner/Cant_Get_It_Right.mp3
http://www.parlophone.co.uk/babyshambles/timesdownload/download.php?DOWNLOAD=1&FILENAME=babyshambles-lost_art_of_murder.mp3
http://www.becrecordings.com/christaylor/1.mp3
http://www.becrecordings.com/christaylor/2.mp3
http://www.radiomute.com/rmmusic/fieldrecordings-mad%20world.mp3

(slashcode is attempting to auto-link in a <code> block... a pity for those who understand xargs)

Goodbye, EMI. Hello, MP3Tunes.

[Tackhead]

Michael Robertson, has accused the plaintiffs EMI, Capitol Records, and other EMI record labels of flooding the internet with free MP3s of their songs for promotional purposes, 'free to everyone (except, apparently, MP3tunes).'

It reads like a bandful of the world's smallest violins, all playing in orchestral majesty. In fact, I feel a song coming on!

Is he suggesting there's an unlimited supply?
That there's no reason why?
Or with the ad links in the frame
He's cashing in on Slashdot fame?
(Who?)
EMI! EMI! EMI!

Capitol's lawyers makin' fuss,
From edge-served networks, download us,
An unlimited amount,
They save on bandwidth, in and out.

When mp3.com was crucified,
For business models that had died,
It was a website that was rivaled by none,
(never ever never...)
And you thought that he was faking?
That it was all just money-making?
You don't think EMI will steal?
Even if they lose their last appeal?

Oh, don't judge a band by its cover,
Unless another you discover,
And blind acceptance is a sign,
of RIAA fools who stand in line
(like)
EMI! EMI! EMI!

Unlimited edition,
With an unlimited supply,
That was the only reason,
MP3.com said goodbye,

Unlimited supply (EMI!)
And there is no reason why! (EMI!)
But with the ad links in the frame, (EMI!)
He's cashing in on Slashdot fame!
Though Beam-it bent UMG's rules (EMI!)
R.I.A.A.'re still useless fools (EMI!)
Unlimited supply.

Hello, MP3Tunes. Goodbye, EMI.

- With apologies to the Sex Pistols, and you should all be grateful I can't sing, or I'd have dubbed it onto the original track and uploaded the result to MP3.com as a parody.

All I want to know is that if Robertson wins, will he carry out on Sigue Sigue Sputnik's 22-year-old threat to Buy EMI

Compared to other heavyweights..

[lmnfrs]

I think this stuff is standard practice for a big organization in a powerful position. Yesterday I tried buying coffee beans from a small (2 location) coffee shop located in a mall. Apparently Starbucks had leased a spot elsewhere in the mall and negotiated a clause into their contract with the mall. The small shop could sell Starbucks beans or make coffee with their own beans, but was forbidden from selling their own beans.

I'm not sure why that situation doesn't qualify as anti-competitive, but controlling distribution options is a basic part of some businesses' plans.

Re:Compared to other heavyweights..

[GiMP]

I once came across something similar where a small restaurant couldn't even sell brewed coffee because of a Starbucks in the shopping center! Likewise, Starbucks had a contract with the landlord...

Re:Compared to other heavyweights..

[GiMP]

The small guys do this too, to be honest. In my town, we have two small mom and pop coffee shops that are open for a few hours a day in the morning. They are not open when I'm looking for entertainment, and they don't provide internet (which if they did, I might go there earlier). In the biggest intersection in town, the corners consist of two gas stations, a park, and an empty lot (which is quite an eye-sore). Starbucks wanted to open there, but the small coffee shops lobbied to prevent the township from allowing the permits to build.

While generally, I would prefer having local businesses as opposed to mega-corporations like Starbucks, I cannot support local businesses that simply refuse to complete.

oblig Riddick quote

[irtza]

In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.

Thinking about this makes me laugh.

[Roskolnikov]

1. The links work.
2. Several of us have used them.

thinking about the suit (providing links to music)
this document is nice piece of work, in writing it, reading it,
linking to it, we have all taken part in the supposed violation of
EMI's rights.

many words come to mind but the choice of mad world as one of the linked songs, well thats enough for me.

Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I couldn't really figure out what NYCL's summary was trying to say here, other than link to the 10-page declaration as simple info. Are we meant to read something into this, other than the general "Labels are doing shenanigans again" message? Or does this feed into the RIAA issue or even into current cases in some specific way?

I wasn't really "trying to say" anything, just reporting on some interesting facts. Yes this plays into all of the record companies' stupid cases, in MANY ways, relevant to MANY issues. No way could I now start discussing that in a public forum, but lawyers representing defendants will have a field day with this stuff...

Re:What's NewYorkCountryLawyer's angle on this one

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

NYCL I love you. I was surprised to find you were the older of the ones pictured on your website, thinking my elders didn't have a clue about technology. For that I am sorry. You are not on the side of your clients, at least not publically on riaavsamerica blog. You are on the side of what you believe to be true, based on of your countless university hours and countless hours in reality on top of that. There have been very few people, since I first became aware of politics in the early Clinton days, who took a stand on belief rather than financial or political gain. Your continued investment in the purely informative postings you continue to provide, as well as your cameo commentary on aggregators such as this, suggests you are trying to follow the law, as opposed to following the money. I could be biased, being on a certain side of the RIAA cause. But I have thought for a number of years -- no one in this country would give up their home for a cause. Few would go to jail for the confidentiality of their sources. If we had a civil war we would struggle to find someone to fight. Because everyone has a decent job, or at least most people do (unemployment isn't that high), and those who don't, don't automatically have to become toilet cleaners. Our economic status was, for a while, equal to none. And throughout that, you posted information, then questions, then support, then as we see here back to information again, for the good of... not yourself certainly. Please, do not humor me with a personal reply as you so frequently do here. Instead, accept the thanks of a million geeks who could not otherwise provide any feedback in any fashion. You are the last starfighter, the last true outpost in American society. If we can't understand the digital revolution and all of the intricacies that it introduces, we are in a world of hurt. And if "we" have cushy enough jobs and a reliable paycheck due to minimum wage hikes, there is no incentive to take the war into a public and therefore personal (or vice e versa) space. I see it with my colleagues and read about it here. No one wants to fight. So what if you were Skywalker? Or Mowgli? Or for shit's sake Neo... The fight is the same, the truth is the same, the enemy is the same. The fight is the same, and most people don't know it is happening. But if they knew where to look, they might have more than just a feeling.

Thank you for your kindness. But I am not the last starfighter, I am one of many. And when we are no longer here, there will be others to take our place.