Fire Alarm Companies

It 's been many, many years ago, since EMI began his ridiculous lawsuit against MP3tunes and Michael Robertson, a variety of factors with MP3tunes and the concept of online music lockers. Someone has to be told that a final decision expected in November last year, but it just came, and it 's mostly good news. You can find the full submission can be found here (pdf) or see it embedded below. The details of the case are somewhat involved, but MP3tunes Music Locker is basically one, similar to Google and Amazon 's music locker / streaming player. Where it became a little complicated was that MP3tunes also offered "Sideload.com" with the MP3s you can about the Internet in your Music Locker move found so long as it could be a URL.

EMI argues that the company is not protected by DMCA safe harbors, they claim that it 'blinded on purpose, even for its users' injury and not to claims against hundreds of users who have copies of identified songs sideloaded take 'EMI' as a violation. But the court rejected that. He noted that the company 'traces the source and web address of each device downloaded song in its users' lockers and the account can stop a repeat offender. "In addition, the company had, in fact, to 153 terminate accounts. So says the court ruled that MP3tunes is definitely qualified for DMCA safe harbors. This is a good decision and another useful DMCA win.

The court is more important, notes that many people have no idea sideloading content, if they 's it justified or not, and that would be indecent to them all as "blatant" infringer, treat, especially because it' s only for personal use:

He reveals that MP3tunes 's users are not content to upload to the Internet, but copy songs from third-party sites for their personal entertainment. There is a difference between the users, which they lack authorization to upload content and still use the Internet for the world to see or copy, and users who download the content for personal use and are otherwise blind to the rights of others to know. The former are flagrant violators, that Internet service providers are obliged to ban from their websites. The latter, like MP3tunes users, content Sideload their lockers for personal use, not for sure if the material they download always know the copyrights of others injured.

Regardless there 's an important victory tucked away in a footnote in which the Court ruled that to qualify for pre-1972 recordings DMCA safe harbors. As you may recall, we 've spoken a few times, like pre-1972 recording are generally covered by state laws instead (which is why many do not meet the public sector can be much longer) federal copyright law. EMI tried the pre-1972 rulings don 't even qualify for DMCA safe harbors, but the court rejected this absolutely, having regard to the "plain meaning of the statutory language." Arguing

EMI where guests have a victory in the assertion is that, when it sent DMCA takedown notices via links from Sideload.com should MP3tunes also then have to reach into user 'lockers and delete the corresponding songs. I 'm not sure how this relates to the statute, but argues the court ruled that because of MP3tunes has this information (if a song Side Load to your locker, it records where it came from), it should be clear in the deed of users 'lockers. Again, attempts EMI 's legal claim stretch too far. He claimed that more than just the specific information, MP3tunes should delete "all EMI content \." The Court of the label that the better informed:

EMI's argument misconstrues the DMCA and applicable case law. Even assuming the representative lists properly identified EMI's copyrighted works, EMI had to provide sufficient information--namely, additional web addresses--for MP3tunes to locate other infringing material.... EMI's notifications provided only enough information for MP3tunes to remove the noticed websites from Sideload.com and to find and remove copies of songs sideloaded from those websites. They did not identify the location of additional infringing material, let alone all of EMI's copyrighted works. Absent adequate notice, MP3tunes would need to conduct a burdensome investigation in order to determine whether songs in its users' accounts were unauthorized copies. As discussed, the DMCA does not place this burden on service providers.

Another important rejection of EMI. It tries, the infamous "red flag" use of knowledge aspect of the DMCA against MP3tunes and said that execs on the website itself works "obviously violates pages." The court notes that EMI 's definition of "uploaded obviously injured sites" is very different than what he is proposing legislation:

For instance, the websites rapidshare.com, fileden.com, and filefactory.com, as well as other sites used by MP3tunes executives to sideload songs do not use the words "pirate" or "bootleg" or other slang to indicate their illegal purpose and they are not otherwise clearly infringing. They are simply popular file sharing sites.

That 's interesting to consider, how often to consist of industry types, that such sites "obviously hurt." If it turns out, a federal court does not agree. Love so, the court know the red flag, and notes that have indeed turned up some "survey" that such things were injured, "if investigation is needed to determine whether material constitutes copyright infringement, then these Facts are not "red flags. '"That' s going to put on hold a lot of cases in which the entertainment industry claims" red flag "DMCA violations.

The court also rejected the terms "free" "mp3" or "file-sharing" are indicative of injury and noted that "these terms are commonplace on legitimate sites offer legitimate services." In fact, how Robertson was a crowdsourcing effort, EMI itself "works regularly distributed over the Internet \ free" (something that it rejected earlier). However, this undermines EMI 's case:

Because of these activities, "s executives concede that Internet users, including MP3tunes 'EMI \ Users and managers are not sure whether to be free songs on the Internet unwarranted.

This line alone could be important, given how often the industry is that the people "just know" what 's hurt. The Court correctly recognizes that it 's not so easy.

Moreover, and contrary to the assertions of some who do not understand the law, the Court finds that just because you get hints DMCA, it is not certain that you 'red flag "have knowledge specific Violations.

But the financial benefit to the act of infringement must .... While Sideload.com be used to attract users to MP3tunes.com and sales of pay lockers, it has no user rights violation. In addition, MP3tunes has not promote injury. Instead, remove links to hurt them ... and terminated the accounts of users who apparently shared by other copyright files.

That line may be death for some of the lawsuits against cyberlockers out there, which all seem to assume that traffic = profiting from infringement. While this ruling may not be applicable in other jurisdictions yet, you can bet lawyers will be pointing to it, and hopefully other judges will understand this key point.

EMI then scoring again in the contributory infringement claim on the same line of reasoning on top of that MP3tunes refused to remove files from cabinets, if they later were used as sources of violation of EMI sideloaded. Separately, since EMI sued Michael Robertson personally (and not just the company), the court finds that he 's liability for direct infringement of the injury songs he sideloaded.

There are some other side issues as well, but generally this is a great victory for the MP3tunes and the DMCA safe harbors. It is likely that it appeals (perhaps on both sides), so this is not over a long time in an already overly long legal battle. But this decision is especially good news.

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story