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...
- Paypal Cuts Off Mega Because It Actually Keeps Your Files Secret
- Have You Been Debating What Color Some Random Dress Is All Day? Thank Fair Use
- Despite Lack Of Evidence It Will Help, Australia Still Planning To Bring In Data Retention, Still Not Clear If It Could Be Used Against Copyright Infringement
- Judge Adjusts MP3Tunes Ruling, Blasts Everyone
- Michael Robertson Challenges Ruling That Says He Has To Pay Over $40 Million For Copyright Infringement