MP3Tunes 'Safe Harbor' Court Challenge Approaching

markjhood2003 sends along an update on a story we first discussed two years back: EMI's lawsuit against MP3Tunes on the claim that cloud storage of music is illegal. The case has gathered importance as cloud computing has grown in capability and acceptance. Opposition briefs in the case are due on Wednesday and oral arguments will start in January. EMI is making the unusual move (the opposition calls it "desperate") of insisting that the EFF's friend-of-the-court brief not be accepted. "EMI says the brief filed last week by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups supporting MP3tunes’s argument that it’s not responsible for what music its users store on its servers should be barred because it is 'a pure advocacy piece, not a "friend of the court."' Amicus curiae briefs are often filed by interest groups and the government in cases that could set major precedents, in order to illustrate the broader ramifications of the case. ... After three years of litigation, EMI argues that EFF’s brief is too long, thereby 'circumventing' the court’s 'page restrictions' causing 'additional burden' to the court and “prejudice” to the EMI. ... In addition, EMI says, EFF’s brief 'contains unsupported speculation that is not helpful to the Court.' Anyone can submit such a brief as long as they’re not a party to the case, and judges have full discretion whether to accept them. They almost always do."

Comments

Re:The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker

[cornicefire]

I understand your point. I do. They never run up the pirate flag like the Pirate Party in Sweden, but they always seem to be on the side of the copyists. Why just this week they called on the Euro Commission to "protect internet users' rights by requiring a court order." And so you can claim that they're not condone infringement, just defending the users' rights to endless time in court. But what are the users afraid of? Being busted for copyright infringement. This has nothing to do with civil rights or protection from profiling or any of a number of interesting issues. The only reason they want to throw the sand in the gears is to protect the infringers because they're the only ones to worry about ISP takedowns from the current law.