by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jan 5th 2009 2:18pm
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...
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
- Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
- Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
- Appeals Court Rejects Labels' Collusion Scheme To Try To Force Pandora To Pay Higher Rates
- Major Record Labels Use Lawsuit Against MP3Skull To Try To Backdoor In SOPA