Slashdot Mirror
EMI Using Rapidshare To Market Music
An anonymous reader writes "While Rapidshare defends itself around the world from lawsuits by media companies for copyright infringement, new evidence was revealed that UK-based major label EMI is putting music on Rapidshare and directing people to download it in the hopes that it spreads 'virally.' This came to light in the ongoing copyright battle EMI v. MP3tunes over personal cloud media storage and the Sideload.com music search engine. EMI accuses MP3tunes of enabling piracy by linking to Rapidshare, but since EMI is using Rapidshare, this would seem to weaken their argument considerably. You can read the legal brief online."
Morons. If they're the ones doing the original copyright infringement and putting the files up on a file sharing website for anyone to get to, doesn't that kind of negate their claim on copyright infringements when people, you know, copy the files?
which is totally what she said
... not as I do.
After 12 years and a few days, I finally gave in to the dark side and joined slashdot.
With EMI spreading files far and wide, their experts grudgingly admit that it’s impossible to tell which links are authorized and which are not.
Looks like EMI ruined their own business model.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This is a corporate version of entrapment. If the judge has any sanity he would hold them in contempt for this action based on the fact that an active suit the plaintiff brought on is still occurring!
To the best of my (layman's) knowledge, the area of what implies an "implied consent" or "implied contract" is often rather murky, and based on a mixture of precedent and judicial gut feeling, along with some patchy laws.
I would be pretty certain that EMI posting Song X to which they own the copyright to Rapidshare does not entitle me to (legally) redistribute it; but it seems like there might be a very good argument that it does entitle me to, legally, download it. If there is a location(a Freecycle depot or something) that operates under a large banner saying "Free stuff, take what you want, save it from the dump!" and I place a computer that I own in that location, I have to imagine that a reasonable man, in the legal sense, would conclude that I am thereby forfeiting ownership of that object(unless I can specifically prove that I was just carrying it, set it down for a moment to catch my breath, and somebody snatched it from beside my feet, or something similar).
Rapidshare, as its name would suggest, is basically an electronic analog of such a physical place. You put stuff there to distribute it(though, if memory serves, they might have some private distribution option for members). If a rightsholder knowingly and intentionally places material to which they own the rights in a place that explicitly operates as a medium for free dissemination, one would imagine that this amounts to an implied consent to, at least, free dissemination from that location. It doesn't clearly mean surrender of copyright, so it might not save those who re-disseminate it by other means; but it would seem to imply a licence to disseminate has been granted to rapidshare...
Obviously, IANAL; but I know that there are limits to what you can do without creating implicit, and binding, rights to for others. You can't mail somebody something without their consent and then invoice them for it, if you try, the thing that you mailed is a gift. If you put something on the curb, with a "free-take me" sign, you can't reasonably expect to charge the person who does with larceny...
Such blatant hypocrisy hasn't stopped the courts from siding with the corporations against the consumer in the past.
This is more about setting the precedent that piracy is wrong, not about the merits of this particular case.
This sounds awfully familiar to...oh wait, a story from yesterday!
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/02/2327227/Google-Loses-Street-View-Suit-Forced-To-Pay-1
Since EMI didn't *really* care about their music being distributed online they can win the case but only be awarded $1 in damages.
Are people seriously going to start blasting away about this with nothing more for evidence than that the defendant filed an exhibit under seal? So basically, he thinks its true, and that his evidence is solid, but none of us can see it-- and thats enough for everyone to believe it?
Dont get me wrong, it wouldnt be hard to imagine this being real-- but the fact that everyone here is going to take someone's word about it-- especially when winning their court case is dependent on that statement-- is rather astonishing. I would hope at least people would wait to actually SEE the evidence.
One would think people would remember Tenenbaum, and how SURE everyone was that he was in the right, only to later find that he was basically lying about everything.
We're always telling them to recognise they're model of music is flawed and outdated, and that they should make use of what ordinary consumers are using. Now they are. Good on them.
The big record companies won't do anything that the don't think is going to be profitable. So if EMI is indeed using Rapidshare to promote some of their artists' music, then there must be something to it. All of these years of arguing that piracy on sites like Rapidshare hurts their bottom line would seem to be contradicted. EMI is just following the money. If giving away songs ultimately helps sell more of them, then they will do it. Ironically, the pursuit of p2p lawsuits has damaged their reputation so much that they probably have to make songs look like illegal downloads to be attractive to their target market.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
And they're just doing it for the fame.
Because with this new "digital" music there is an unlimited supply.
And as for not downloading it, there is no reason why.
Nope.
This is the proof of the last piece of the puzzle.
They put their poisoned copy behind 3 links labeled "download here" and then record the IP address of whoever gets to the third link. Then they activate their backroom liason with your ISP, and your ISP breaks the veil and sends you a nasty notice.
And forget torrents, because if ordinary web links are poisoned, then the web stops being the web and becomes Russian Roulette, so that only Walled Gardens become safe. Please tell me this is not Web 3.0 Alpha.
They put their poisoned copy behind 3 links labeled "download here" and then record the IP address of whoever gets to the third link.
Citation needed.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
If they put the files up for download then taking the copies from the internet is not an illegal copy, since the distribution is legal. Since those copies are legal copies, you cannot infringe copyright by downloading.
Because they ask you to share them, the subsequent distribution of the files is legally endorsed.
Because they put the files on a P2P system where the method of distribution by the legal copyright owner is to enable each and every person on that network to distribute themselves (else it is not P2P but hosting), the subsequent distribution by anyone who gets a copy (and those who get that subsequent copy, recursively) is legally endorsed by the copyright owner and therefore cannot be copyright infringement.
Or, in short, you're right, they can't break their own copyrights. But since they're allowing distribution, nobody else can break their copyright either.
But subsequent sharing is licensed by the fact that they ask you to. They don't lose their copyright, but anyone can distribute the file because the one who decides who can distribute (the copyright owner) has said they can.
This is the same reason why boxers don't sue their opponent in the ring.
You fucking bastards!!! You sue the LIVING FUCK out of little old ladies because their granddaughter shared a few songs, and then you turn right around and fileshare your shit music for your own benefit? FUCK. YOU.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I got a notice but I am not going to post it here. Sorry to go all Fermat's Last on you.
I don't know how to torrent so it's not p2p. I have a theory of what site it was, but they conveniently don't list that on the notice.
I’m pretty sure the precedent has been set and that wouldn’t hold up in court, in the US, anyway.
Your ISP might be able to legally terminate your service, though...
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Rapidshare? I tell ya, MediaFire is easier to use. ;)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
EMI can distribute their copyrighted works anyway they wish. I don't think that's at issue. What is at issue is the www.Sideload.com music search engines which doesn't host any files, but simply links to various places. EMI is complaining that all the links on Sideload.com are unauthorized and complains about links to Rapidshare to illustrate their point. However if they're placing files on Rapidshare and then inviting people to download them from that location, then they can't very well claim all links to Rapidshare are unauthorized. Furthermore, they have admitted that it's impossible to know whether a link is authorized or not by looking at it. Thus Sideload.com's operator MP3tunes can't be expected to police every link. Besides the DMCA explicitly says search engines don't have that obligation. It should be noted that EMI is also complaining about the personal music storage MP3tunes offers. -- MR