The record labels love to sue Michael Robertson, the founder of MP3.com (sold to Vivendi in 2001 for $372 million) who now incubates a number of Web startups. One of them is MP3Tunes, which is billed as a music storage locker. But the record labels still don’t like it. EMI is suing MP3Tunes for copyright infringement and demanded that the service turn over the more than 100 million music files stored in all 125,000 MP3Tunes accounts. (The argument is that even if there is no sharing between lockers, users are transferring music to MP3Tunes, which is the same as distributing the music—a right only EMI has). A court in New York has denied that request, Robertson writes on his blog. Excerpt:
All access to a music Locker requires a unique username and password, and there is absolutely no sharing between Lockers. . . . MP3tunes strongly objected to EMI’s request, because it was both an invasion of user’s personal storage, and because it would create a huge technical and financial burden, with more than 300 terabytes of files in personal Lockers. Files are not MP3tunes’ possessions any more than the contents of a safety deposit box are owned by the bank that houses them.
No corporation should have the right to demand the content of tens of thousands of personal accounts be turned over to them. There’s no reason to suggest that the users are doing anything but listening to their own music collections in a modern manner. There are millions of Gmail accounts that have MP3 files stored in them � same with Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft’s email and hosting services. If EMI can gain unfettered access to wantonly look through personal accounts on MP3tunes those services will be next.
EMI is trying to eliminate online storage and take people back to a prehistoric time before Internet services existed.
It is a small victory that could be overturned by a higher court. But this court made the right decision. EMI shouldn’t be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. It needs to be a little more specific in its requests for data. After all, those 100 million songs are not just EMI songs. And this whole theory that transferring music from your computer to a personal online storage service is the same as redistributing that music completely ignores modern reality. But that is not surprising. The record companies are living in their own reality distortion field. After all, these are the same people who want to tax all Internet users for copyright infringement, even if you’ve never done any file-sharing in your life.
I hope EMI wins this. and no, you’re severly misinformed. These are not “the same people ” want the internet music service fee, that would be warner not EMI.
But its ok, being misinformed is part of the reason blog writers are different from media journalists.
Great news and publicity for Robertson.
@bs:
You must be joking, right? Why could you possibly hope EMI wins this?
Transferring files to a secure location accessible only to you distribution. This is a slam dunk. Only stupidity in the courts can give this any life.
Here’s the thing. Though this may sound like a Noble Internet Crusade, Robertson’s companies have spent many fortunes fending off entirely foreseeable lawsuits. He starts (or “incubates”) these companies with what appears to be virtually no due diligence, gets sued, blows through huge piles of cash in legal defense, then caves, and paints it all as David taking on Goliath.
I’m not terribly happy to see how he’s thrown Yahoo!, GMail, AOL, and even Microsoft under the bus on this, either. That’s a really stupid balls-out gamble that he’ll eventually win this thing. If he doesn’t, EMI will certainly be hot on the trail of those folks, next.
I’m absolutely no fan of the entertainment cabal, but there have to be better ways to spend money than fighting legal battles with these guys that just can’t be won. He could be adding so much more to the tech and entertainment communities if someone could just prescribe medication to control the Don Quixote complex.
@ bs:
quote from the article: The record companies are living in their own reality distortion field. After all, these are the same people who want to tax all Internet users for copyright infringement
The author of the article isn’t misinformed, you simply don’t read right. It says ‘the record companies’. The record companies includes both Warner and EMI. So they ARE the same people. They both are record companies with very prehistoric ideas.
Since when is it a crime to store your property somewhere else? I paid for that music, I can store wherever I want. Do you also consider it a crime when I leave my mp3-player in my locker at school?
@5 it was a crime since copyright infringement laws existed.
EMI’s case has no merit if they truly believe in DRM-free. Michael Robertson is an innovator and pioneer for the music industry. mp3tunes is a great idea that just adds to the efficiency of our daily lives. Since the advent of the internet and its evolution ever since, the record labels have become less and less significant. The outlets that they provided in yesteryear are as accessible as they’ve ever been. This lawsuit is laughable, and I wish Michael and his team the best of luck moving forward.
^I’m with Greg and Stefanos, and I got this itchy feeling this BS guy just might be working for a major record label..
It shouldn’t be a crime to store your music elsewhere, but I as we all know it is illegal to distribute it to other people. Even when CD’s ruled the audio world, people still found a way to burn them and exact copies. You never saw the music industry trying to stop people from burning CD’s. So why is digital music any different.
The thing about mp3tunes is that’ it’s basicly a clone of an old web1.0 company called ‘myplay.com’ – they launched an online music storage and streaming locker in 1999. You could either upload directly from your computer or ‘Sideload’ from another site which was partnering with myplay.
In 2000, my.mp3.com copied a lot of the myplay site design and launched but instead of allowing uploads it ‘unlocked’ content from mp3.com after you proved that you had a physical copy of the CD.
Of course we all know that mp3.com’s approach found them in less favour with the legal system and it lost out.
@bs: Telling people they are misinformed without “informing” them is an empty comment. I say put words where your mouth is.
-Blake
@#4 you honestly think that his announcing the facts about yahoo and gmail etc. is what set them “hot on the trail” of those companies? that’s surreal, man. don’t blame the messenger. He was just pointing out the FACT that this is a monster biting the toe of another monster… and that if the courts allow the toe to be bitten off that the rest of that monster will wake up and start fighting back… the record companies are run by old people… these people actually BELIEVE in what they are doing, which is why they will aim their ship directly at the rock and fly head into it, confident all the while that the rock is a cloud.
The music industry needs to adapt or die. So far, they seem to be doing more dieing than adapting. The web has been around for 13 – 14 years now and they still haven’t figured out how to use it to their and their customers mutual advantage. In my opinion, there has been ample time to adapt!
GO MICHAEL! While MP3 tunes may not succeed in the long run, you represent what an entrepreneur should be. You stand for your beliefs even in the face of great opposing force. You have stood up for what is right in this cause for so many years. We, the citizens of the United States, thank you. (I speak for everyone)
Whether you agree with Michael’s decisions to test legal waters or not, you must admit that the man has a vision and there’s some merit to his claims. We wouldn’t be much of a society if we never tested the limits and tried to figure out new and innovative ways to provide value to the consumer. The music labels have always brazenly defended their rights with bravado to the point of absurdity. They didn’t want the MP3 format to ever take off and digital portable music devices were seen as a threat.
People like Michael Robertson are innovators and innovators often beg new questions of legality and validity, but MR seems quite content with that role.
@ Buster, you said MR spins things as David vs. Goliath, but trust me, no spin is necessary. I’ve worked for him and he’s a legit David. It takes a lot of patience and strength to take on the difficult battles that he does and many times there’s a lot more risk than economic reward in it, but it seems that’s his lot in life: to challenge the mega-corporations.
As I understood it the were really getting sued over the way in which mp3tunes was acting like a collector of mp3’s found on other sites. Like seeqpod but copying the files into your own ‘private’ locker (although I’ll bet real money they actually aggregate files from the same source into a single file on their filesystem).
So does this ruling cover all the claims against mp3tunes or just the one mentioned?
OK I went digging and baiscly the ’setback’ is that EMI was unsuccessful in getting mp3tunes to hand over 300Tb of mp3’s as part of the pre-trial discovery process.
Frankly, it seems like this was a longshot to begin with, but that’s what lawyers do during discovery they try to get their hands on anything remotely relevant in the hope that they can find something that ca be made to apear bad in court.
That’s shocking. I’m constantly surprised at the stupidity of the majors. Looks like exactly what you said…. fishing to see what they could possibly get away with.
I don’t like piracy of music (shit, my wife is a singer/songwriter and we have 3 babies to feed), but this is bollocks to try and stop people from storing their music anywhere they see fit (as long as they aren’t accessible to others).
@6 Please clarify your statement, what has been illegal since the inception of copyright law? I would also like to question the logic of claiming an act overtly illegal under a law, if the act in question was not technologicly possible, much less under consideration when the law was written.
This case, and cases like it, revolve around clarifying the old laws in the context of new and developing technology. Simply declaring your interpretation of the law correct, ignoring this context is simplistic, and clouds the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is twofold:
1. How do we interpret old copywright law in light of present day technological advantages?
2. Does the Music industry have the sole right to interpret such a law any way it wants, considering that copyright law is in place not only to protect the IP owner, but also the consumer of said IP. Otherwise the term ‘fair use’ wouldn’t be an issue.