MP3Tunes Points Out EMI's Own Actions Contradict Its Lawsuit
from the authorized,-not-authorized dept
EMI’s lawsuit against Michael Robertson’s MP3Tunes has never made much sense. MP3Tunes isn’t distributing any MP3s. It just lets you upload and store your own music, or, if the songs are publicly available elsewhere, to access those tunes. EMI threatened MP3Tunes if it didn’t remove all EMI music, and then eventually sued. Yet, in MP3Tunes defense, it’s pointing out that EMI, itself, has flooded the internet with its own free MP3s, thereby authorizing others to link to those tunes (exactly what MP3Tunes was doing). So, the argument goes, how is it okay for EMI to authorize the MP3s for everyone to link to except MP3Tunes? Given cases in the past that deal with the legality of deep linking, this seems like it could be a pretty strong argument…
Comments on “MP3Tunes Points Out EMI's Own Actions Contradict Its Lawsuit”
I wanna see this case go all the way now. MP3Tunes could throw a giant wrench into the plans of the record companies.
stick that in your ass and lick it “record companies”.
Lawsuits for mp3
Yea, MP3Tunes Points Out EMI’s Own Actions Contradict and should its Lawsuit for all mp3 tunes and cheap mp3 players
Online storage is not much different to hardware storage
If the mp3 tunes service is mainly about providing users an online storage space to save their songs this is not much different from users saving tracks on their mp3 players and using that as a ‘mass storage device’ (i.e. similar to how you might carry a USB memory stick around with you).