"Michael Robertson, a pioneer in the digital music business who has repeatedly clashed with record companies over legal issues, was found liable this week for $41 million in a long-running federal copyright infringement suit. Mr. Robertson’s latest conflict with the music industry was over MP3tunes, a company he founded in 2005 and shut down two years ago. MP3tunes let its users back up digital music files on remote services on the Internet — an early version of the so-called cloud lockers that technology giants like Apple and Google offer as part of their standard suite of digital music offerings... During the MP3tunes trial, Mr. Robertson said that the company canceled the accounts of users who abused the locker system. In a statement on Thursday, he accused the music industry of suing his company “to send a message to others not to partner with us or to emulate our business,” and criticized the system of statutory damages for copyright infringement, which led to charges of up to $100,000 per song. “I’m still holding out hope that the legal system will end up at the right place,” Mr. Robertson added. “Sometimes it takes a while with new technologies.”"
Showing posts with label EMI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EMI. Show all posts
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Digital Music Pioneer Is Found Liable in Copyright Suit; New York Times, 3/28/14
Ben Sisario, New York Times; Digital Music Pioneer Is Found Liable in Copyright Suit:
Friday, January 6, 2012
New Lawsuit Means All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark; New York Times, 1/5/12
Ben Sisario, New York Times; New Lawsuit Means All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark:
"Grooveshark, a popular digital music service that is being sued for copyright infringement by three of the four major record companies, now has problems with the one big label that it has a licensing deal with.
On Wednesday, EMI Music Publishing filed suit against Grooveshark’s parent company, the Escape Media Group, for breach of contract, saying that since striking the deal in 2009, Escape has “made not a single royalty payment to EMI, nor provided a single accounting statement.”"
"Grooveshark, a popular digital music service that is being sued for copyright infringement by three of the four major record companies, now has problems with the one big label that it has a licensing deal with.
On Wednesday, EMI Music Publishing filed suit against Grooveshark’s parent company, the Escape Media Group, for breach of contract, saying that since striking the deal in 2009, Escape has “made not a single royalty payment to EMI, nor provided a single accounting statement.”"
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat; LA Times,
Randy Lewis and Todd Martens, LA Times; Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat:
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Friday, November 6, 2009
Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs:
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal; Guardian, 11/5/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal:
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/5/09
Sydney Morning Herald; EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes:
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
Friday, October 30, 2009
Down Under musician says he's dinkum; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/30/09
Joel Gibson, Sydney Morning Herald; Down Under musician says he's dinkum:
"Larrikin Music Publishing, which owns the rights to Kookaburra, is suing Hay and Strykert and their publishing company, EMI, claiming they reproduced more than half of Kookaburra and made a small fortune from it in royalties, licences and sheet music sales.
Larrikin wants 40 to 60 per cent of income earned from Down Under in future and in the past six years, which is as far back as the law allows. But the authors and EMI say the use of the Kookaburra melody was unconscious, and is a fair adaptation under the Copyright Act.
Even if it was an infringement, they argue Larrikin is ''over-reaching'', saying many of the 20-plus versions of the song do not contain the flute riff."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/down-under-musician-says-hes-dinkum-20091029-hnr1.html
"Larrikin Music Publishing, which owns the rights to Kookaburra, is suing Hay and Strykert and their publishing company, EMI, claiming they reproduced more than half of Kookaburra and made a small fortune from it in royalties, licences and sheet music sales.
Larrikin wants 40 to 60 per cent of income earned from Down Under in future and in the past six years, which is as far back as the law allows. But the authors and EMI say the use of the Kookaburra melody was unconscious, and is a fair adaptation under the Copyright Act.
Even if it was an infringement, they argue Larrikin is ''over-reaching'', saying many of the 20-plus versions of the song do not contain the flute riff."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/down-under-musician-says-hes-dinkum-20091029-hnr1.html
Thursday, July 9, 2009
K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music; New York Times, 7/9/09
New York Times; K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music:
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)