Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge's beatdown:
Who needs hearings? A federal judge has read enough to extend his injunction against BlueBeat.com, a site selling Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. And he has little time for the "vague" explanations of "pyscho-acoustic simulation" provided by BlueBeat's founder.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/bluebeat-beatles-tracks-gone-for-good-after-judges-beatdown.ars
Showing posts with label psycho-acoustic simulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psycho-acoustic simulation. Show all posts
Saturday, November 21, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)