EMI Sues Beatles Usurper Off the Net 358
blackest_k sends along a Wired piece on EMI's successful suit to get Beatles music off the Net. Here is the judge's ruling (PDF). "A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Santa Cruz company to immediately quit selling Beatles and other music on its online site, setting aside a preposterous argument that it had copyrights on songs via a process called 'psycho-acoustic simulation.' A Los Angeles federal judge set aside arguments from Hank Risan, owner of BlueBeat and other companies named as defendants in the lawsuit EMI filed on Tuesday. His novel defense to allegations he was unlawfully selling the entire stereo Beatles catalog without permission was that he — and not EMI or the Beatles' Apple Corp — owns these sound recordings, because he re-recorded new versions of the songs using what he termed 'psycho-acoustic simulation.' Risan faces perhaps millions of dollars in damages under the Copyright Act. And copyright attorneys said his defense was laughable and carries no weight."
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
Psycho-acoustic simulation sounds like a real good pseudo-science.
It's what most of us call mp3 or m4a.
I'm sure in Santa Cruz, Ca it makes perfect sense (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is PAS? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Bluebeat guys did something a bit more tricky. They compressed the music as MP3 (whch I guess is psychoacoustic simulation - after all, the MP3 was compressed by using psychoacoustic principles to reduce the data contained, producing a simulation of the original). But the trick they're using to get around copyright law was to embed images into it [arstechnica.com], turning it into an "audio-visual" work. There is a separation, because AV works (think movies) are one entity - you cannot copyright the sound part of a movie separately from the moving images part.
Of course, that defense must fail, otherwise Hollywood would be using music with aplomb instead of having to get licenses to it when they incorporate it into a movie or TV show. Many older programs are tied up from home viewing because licenses don't allow home video distribution, and are often edited to replace licensed works.
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
Why, why, why must people who might otherwise help argue the case that today's copyright is broken spoil their credibility with exageration and mis-statement of facts?
1 - Not every person on Earth benefits from public domain music. Some are too damned busy trying to remain alive.
2 - The Beatle's copyrights do not funnel every penny made off of sale of their music to the surviving band members.
Yes, their music should be out of copyright by now. You'd be a greater help to the cause of copyright reform that would make that happen by sticking to reality and sounding like you've thought the issue through, than by spouting off feel-good numbers that make it sound like you're wearing blinders so you can reach the conclusion you want.
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
that wasn't my title, actually its been completely rewritten by K Dawson, editors do a lot more than people think on here.
The site is still up and offers 160kb streaming of a good quantity of music for free and you can buy tracks at 25 cents each I believe and some remarkably high quality original recordings of some familiar tracks.
http://www.bluebeat.com/ [bluebeat.com]
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:1, Informative)
Just because everybody on earth does benefit does not mean that they could not. Public domain is about making things available, not about actually getting them.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that "leylines"?
Re:Crackpots (Re:Santa Cruz, California) (Score:5, Informative)
The SCO that operated in Santa Cruz is not the same SCO that sued IBM. The Santa Cruz Operation company came out with Xenix, SCO UNIX (OpenServer) and Unixware. They purchased Tarantella earlier this decade, and then sold off their Unix-related business to Caldera. As their primary business was now Tarantella, they changed names. Caldera then took over the SCO moniker eventually becoming The SCO Group. It was that company, formerly Caldera, that took on Novell, IBM, et al.
Re:No, they didn't (Score:3, Informative)
Why should the US recognise British copyright? In fact, at first they didn't. But American publishers weren't publishing any American writers, since they could publish British writers without paying royalties. So they amended it to recognize foreign copyrights, but only to the extent they were protected by American copyright.
British copyright law holds no weight in the US, and US copyright law holds no weight in Britain. If you sell a Beatles song in the US, EMI isn't going to sue you in a British court under British law, they're going to sue you an a US court under US law.
US copyright law covers the British Beatles, and does so under US copyright law. In the US, the Constitution is the law all other laws must obey.
If the US had sane copyright lengths and Britain did not, it would be legal to share Beatles files in the US but not in Britain.
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for supporting my viewpoint that copyright has been hijacked. It's meant to benefit the originators of the idea, not suits that were not even born when the songs were first created.
Actually, that's incorrect. Before copyright, there were no artists or writers clamouring for "protection". The people pushing copyright were the publishers [wikipedia.org], who wanted copyright to benefit themselves (which is exactly what we have right now.) The whole "think of the artists" stuff is propaganda invented to create support for copyright from artists and "average" people.
Before copyright, artists considered it a complement that their work was replayed and enjoyed by others.
This, of course, doesn't make the hoarding of our cultural works and the impingement on free expression right, but I just wanted to point out that it was never meant to protect artists, only publishers.
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, except not all debts are dischargeable via bankruptcy.
Not sure about court-levied fines in relation to civil cases like the RIAA's, but IIRC court judgments are not dischargeable.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
It was not, giving 28 year terms of copyright to a populace that would live only 35 on average.
Statistics. You fail it.
If you have 1000 people, 500 of which died before they reached one year, and 500 of which die when they're 70, what is the average life expectancy?
In that time period, most adults lived into their 60's, not mid-thirties. The "35 year lifespan" is a garbage statistic spouted by people who don't understand math.
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:5, Informative)
No matter who sings it, or performs it, or records it, or sells it, or even hums it this music belongs to EMI because they own the very idea of it.
That's not entirely true. US Copyright law carves out some "compulsory licensing" exceptions that copyright holders are obligated to accept particular amounts of payment on and cannot deny permission. Web radio, for example. Mechanical reproduction for another (cover bands, etc). Which I believe may have been the exception this guy was going for, by trying to ride the fine line of what constitutes a new recording of the work. Even the makers of Guitar Hero did this (albeit in a much more legal way, by actually playing and rerecording the songs), and resulted with what sounded to the amateur as identical to the originals.
So this guy's idea wasn't necessarily *crazy*, just too close to literal duplication for this judge's taste (seems even the legal system applies some common sense now and then).
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, that's incorrect. Before copyright, there were no artists or writers clamouring for "protection". The people pushing copyright were the publishers, who wanted copyright to benefit themselves (which is exactly what we have right now.) The whole "think of the artists" stuff is propaganda invented to create support for copyright from artists and "average" people.
Sort of. Did you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked to? While you're right that generally speaking the benefit was generally to the publisher rather than the author, those benefits were not necessarily monetary, a big distinction from the modern situation. When authors were paid for their work, it was more common to be paid a lump sum, rather than modern royalties, since generally in the 16th and 17th centuries many works were only intended to go through one printing. The situation was not "exactly what we have right now."
Read your linked Wikipedia article:
The printing press brought the possibility of compensation for literary labor. Very speedily, however, the unrestricted rivalry of printers brought into existence competing and unauthorized editions of various works, which diminished prospects of any payment, or even entailed loss, for the authors, editors, and printers of the original issue, and thus discouraged further undertaking.
Not just printers.
Protection for the authors and their representatives was sought through special privileges obtained for separate works as issued.
Furthermore, there's more explanation of why publishers as well as rulers might want to grant copyright. Again, from the article:
Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the community. The Republic of Venice, the dukes of Florence, and Leo X and other Popes conceded at different times to certain printers the exclusive privilege of printing for specific terms (rarely exceeding 14 years) editions of classic authors; not so much to secure profits for the printers, but rather to encourage, for the benefit of the community, literary ventures on the part of the editors and printers.
There's a lot more information out there, but I thought it might be nice to quote from the very source you provided.
I've worked with a lot of printed books from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, and early on many of these grants of copyright were certainly more to protect the work of both printer and by extension author/editor so that it would encourage the publication of quality books. And again, most of the early copyright terms were for 5-15 years, enough time for publishers to sell off their stock while preparing more projects. Some of the more elaborate publications of thousands of pages could require months of typesetting and printing, and prominent authors sometimes required the patronage of aristocrats (even kings and emperors) to fund the production of a major work. A printer (and/or a patron) had little incentive to take such a risk when a rare successful publications would immediately be followed by low-quality bootleg abridged copies generated by another publishing house. Hence, copyright for a very limited period after publication to allow the recouping of costs.
So, while you're right that generally publishers were the ones granted copyright, the reasons were not always the same as they are today, and the situation is simply not analogous to the modern corporate greed that tries to keep works out of the public domain for generations.
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:3, Informative)
Parent post provides BAD bankruptcy information.
Judgments are not discharged. They still exist. However, the bankruptcy discharge enjoins the judgment holder from collecting on the judgment. The DEBT is discharged, not the judgment.
If the bankruptcy court finds that the conduct at issue was fraudulent or willful (or a few other things), then that debt won't be discharged.
Judgment liens are another story.
Another reason to ignore legal conclusions on /.----including this one. :)
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:4, Informative)
"What, you mean I'm not allowed to point a camera in a certain direction and push the button?" (just because it happens to be pointed at a copyright painting?) "You mean it's illegal to pluck magnetic waves from the atmosphere and visualize them?"
Those all are legal.
What you are not allowed to do is redistribute the result. Then you have violated copyright.
Intersting Ars article on BlueBeat (Score:2, Informative)
Here [arstechnica.com]
Let's just say that BlueBeat is an interesting company.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:3, Informative)
> Those all are legal.
Except in galleries and museums, of course.
Absoute Nonsense, Modded Up To +5 (Score:3, Informative)
Before copyright, there were no artists or writers clamouring for "protection"
Too often and too easily the geek rewrites history to serve his own needs:
In 1842 there was still no international copyright law, a condition that was stunting American letters and depriving authors on both sides of the Atlantic of a living. American letters and depriving authors on both sides of the Atlantic of a living. Britain was willing to recognize the copyright of foreign writers--but only if their countries reciprocated.
This American publishers adamantly refused to do. Instead, they competed in bribing English pressmen to get early sheets of British books. The sheets were rushed by boat over to the United States, where the jolly pirates churned out cheap editions in a matter of hours.
But it was not only British authors they were robbing. Few publishers were willing to pay American authors for books when they could purloin better-known British ones for free. Herman Melville was hurt by the lack of an international copyright, and such eminent American authors as Emerson, Longfellow, and Hawthorne had to pay publishers an advance in order to have their books produced. The early giants of American literature had to scramble for work at customhouses and in other government jobs, and Edgar Allan Poe, according to his biographer Sidney P. Moss, had to raise advance money for one collection of poems by soliciting 75 cents a head from his fellow West Point classmates, to whom he then dedicated the book.
Dickens was never forced into quite such desperate straits, but neither was he so indifferent to "heaps and mines of gold" as he made out in Boston. He had, after all, spent part of his childhood in a debtors' prison, and as the most popular writer in the world, "of all men living I am the greatest loser.
In private he sarcastically mimicked his hosts: "The Americans read him; the free, enlightened, independent Americans; and what more would he have?... As to telling them they will have no literature of their own, the universal answer (out of Boston) is, 'We don't want one. Why should we pay for one when we can get it for nothing.'"
Copy Wrong [americanheritage.com]
Before copyright, artists considered it a complement that their work was replayed and enjoyed by others.
Before you can write or draw, you must eat.
Before copyright, the writer had a substantial independent income or he had a sponsor or patron.
The church. The government. The merchant price. Each with their own agenda.
A J.R.R Tolkien or C. S. Lewis can navigate that environment and thrive.
But the American writer - particularly the writer of genre fiction - mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, suspense, the thriller - and so on - tends to be an outsider. He and she didn't come into this business to serve their betters - to win their way into the Establishment.
American Fantastic Tales: Terror and the Uncanny from Poe to Now, [loa.org] The Philip K. Dick Collection [loa.org]