Slashdot Mirror
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."
Sigh.
Physical location of information storage is irrelevant.
What matters (and what should matter legally) is who has control of
and access rights to the information. That is the person who is
in possession of the information and determining its disposition.
Whether a person chooses to manage their personal or personally owned
information on a local hard drive, a usb stick, or a rented chunk of the
cloud ought to be completely irrelevant.
If law is going to rule on uses of internet architecture, law had
better understand fundamental concepts of internet architecture,
such as virtual private networks and idependent security realms.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
In their next case, they'll contend that not only are users breaking the law when they store their music on a hard drive they've rented, they're breaking the law when they store their music on a hard drive they've purchased. And of course, when I say "hard drive" I mean a "storage device," such as a flash drive or an optical disk. In other news: EMI pushes for a return to vinyl records.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
...from the bottom up. Simply put, the extant laws and the interpretations thereof are no longer valid for the changes that digitization have brought on. This revision has been needed for many years now, and the record industry's insistence on maintaining outmoded and obselete restrictions is a direct result of their inability to innovate a way to make a profit outside of their old model.
I see no reason why the *AA should stifle creative expression because they're unable to continue making a profit on buggy whips.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
32 whole pages including cover page, table of contents and submission credits at 1.5 line spacing? And people accuse Gen Y of having a short attention span... I'd have to agree that EMI are scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons.
Research on reading typically comes up with results like the following
(google it for more details)
- Longer line lengths generally facilitate faster reading speeds.
- Shorter line lengths result in increased comprehension.
- The optimal number of characters per line is between 45 and 65.
(some studies say 66 to 70, but you get the point.)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The only thing I care about is...is it green?!
And does it give blowjobs?
Even worse, I rip all CDs I buy to flac. Then if I want to use them on my phone I convert that to a smaller format. I truly am a horrible person.
If I were a judge here, and were talked out of reading a FOTC letter, I'd just be more interested in reading it.
Weather forecast for the upcoming years: Increase of music in the troposphere.
80, the optimum length is 80.
It should be green text on a black background.
Attaching data to a medium which cannot be duplicated and degrades over time is the cornerstone of the entertainment industry's business model. Cloud computing, networks, and any other form of data duplication and replication is therefore its natural enemy.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If we accept EMI's argument, then all of the online data backup services are also facilitating copyright infringement and should be shut down. Microsoft's latest buzzword is "the cloud", why haven't they filed an amicus brief?
And by the way, how the fuck can anyone object to an amicus brief? Wouldn't doing so just result in dozens of similar organization filing essentially the same brief? I assure you, EMI, we can file 'em faster than you can object to 'em!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So why does it matter where it is stored, who stores it, blah blah blah.
If all I have purchased from the record companies is a license to the music, then isn't all that matters is that the person accessing the cloud has a license? Doesn't that license entitle me to certain listening rights.
Or to put it another way, isn't MP3Tunes.com responsible for doing nothing else beyond ensuring I have a license for the music they are serving me? Isn't a reasonable method for discerning that fact my ability to upload a copy of that music?
There are two scenarios: either I uploaded a licensed version so now STFU. Or it is an unlicensed version and as such MP3Tunes still isn't facilitating since they aren't the ones that gave me the unlicensed version in the first place and oh yeah BTW I already have an unlicensed copy so the battle is lost. No one else is "getting" that unlicensed version since the only reason they even have access via the cloud is because they already uploaded a licensed version or [drum roll please] they already are in possession of, and uploaded, an unlicensed version.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
That's why this thing is so screwed up. Hardware manufacturers sell a product. Software manufacturers sell a license. The RIAA/MPAA have deluded themselves (and gotten a bunch of laws passed supporting them) that they are selling something which isn't quite a product and isn't quite a license. By their terms, in any case where it being a product would benefit you (able to play it at parties, make backups of it, etc), they want to treat it like a license. But any case where it being a license would benefit you (discounted format upgrades, free replacement for destroyed media, making copies for your home stereo, MP3 player, computer, and car, etc), they want to treat it like a product.
"The water's rushing in! Throw this sandbag on it!
"That's no sandbag, that's a baby!"
"It's a sandbag. Throw it on the pile and I'll get another".
The tactic relates to removing your opponent's argumentative ammunition, by any means. If they have a devistating argument, all the more reason to try to get it thrown out. Nice, or Right, doesn't enter into it.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear