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."
I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:2, Insightful)
The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.
As for this guy in the article, it's pretty clear he was just trying to make a buck by ripping off the Beatles' music. I'm surprised that the judge didn't hand down a larger fine, actually. His "psycho-acoustic simulation" argument was laughable at best. Facepalm worthy, at least.
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Generalize much?
Worst headline EVAR (Score:5, Insightful)
The blame falls on the lurid headline over at Wired, which completely mischaracterizes the actual article. But it's Slashdot's fault for repeating it both in the headline here and in the summary.
For shame.
What kind of idiotic title is that anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me, or is EMI not suing the Beatles (half of which aren't even going to show up in court), but really some fuckwad that sold illegal copies of their songs?
np: Burial - Distant Lights (Various - 5 Years Of Hyperdub (Disc 2))
Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually RTFA, and Beatles music is still available in internet jukeboxes. What happened is some guy tried to twist copyright law in a foolish and illogical way, saying that resampled Beatles songs are his, and he actually registered copyrights of them. The judge PREDICTABLY and logically ruled against him. I'd have laughed him out of court.
EMI holds the real copyrights, sued, and won. The guy posting Beatles songs was clearly in the wrong. As is the summary.
The true evil here is that the Beatles' music should be in the public domain by now; they broke up in 1971, almost forty years ago. You should be able to reuse their art in your own art by now; that was, in fact, the whole purpose of giving Congress the power to write copyright law in the first place.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:5, Insightful)
For Profit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What kind of idiotic title is that anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story is tagged badtitle when in fact it should be wrongtitle, or even better toostupidtomakeagoodtitle.
Re:Piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope. Culture, information, we should never approve of shackles on these things. We should reject claims of ownership of ideas or data.
Re:What is PAS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since psychoacoustic is explicitly mentioned in regard to audio compression tech (like MP3) I think he just invented a term for "I ripped it to MP3"
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For Profit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
Copyright has nothing to do with any "moral line", its a big goddamn scam to help people with lots of money keep their lots of money.
Cheers.
Re:Worst headline EVAR (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah call it "worst evar", "lurid", and "mischaracterizing", but do not try to explain *why* it is wrong, it's much more dramatic that way.
Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? I know the dumbing-down of the modern media urges us to think in terms of black and white concepts, but there should be room for this. EMI are obviously evil copyright trolls, and this Hank Risan is equally obviously selling copyrighted material. Shakespeare (as always) has a good line for this:
"A plague on both your houses."
Lucy in the Sky with Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
If Timothy Leary was born a few decades later, he'd patent psychedelic trips. Then we'd be stuck in the bland 50's forever singing doo-wap tunes.
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:4, Insightful)
The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
Ray Beckerman (/.'s NYCL) is a copyright lawyer, and he doesn't think file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads. In fact he fights them tooth and nail.
But I would bet he would agree that this guy's defense is laughable.
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright lawyers are laughing at this guy's defense, but these are the same lawyers who think that file sharing is immoral and that record companies should have the right to sue people into poverty because of a few kilobytes of uploads.
I wouldn't put too much weight on what they think.
What is legal or not, and what is right or not are often completely different. These lawyers may have some rather screwy ideas about the latter, but it's their job to have a very good understanding of the former. So when the former is what's under discussion, what they think probably should carry a bit of weight.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:5, Insightful)
The crazy people in Berkeley wander around pushing shopping carts; the crazy people in Glastonbury sit in fields smoking pot. What is distinctive about Santa Cruz is its peculiarly high-functioning crazy people, like this guy, who are entirely divorced from reality, yet somehow manage to, for instance, run a record label.
Re:For Profit? (Score:2, Insightful)
This guy obviously knew he was doing something wrong and was trying to circumvent copyright law by claiming he held the copyright on Beatles song.
That is completely different from sharin' some songs with your friends.
See the difference?
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. I suppose you are right. I have spent too much time in all of these places. What Glastonbury lacks is a University, or it would take some of the California tinge.
I like your nick. I wore a Homburg for years, when I was too young to carry it of, really. Now I am ageing, I suppose I could go for it, again - but the wife would not approve...
Do you know the minor-hit by Procol Harum? Or is that too Glastonbury/Berkeley :-)
Re:No, they didn't (Score:2, Insightful)
100% agree - This music was created before I was born and it won't be till after I'm gone that the copyright will expire.
THIS SERIOUSLY HAMPERS CREATIVITY AND MUSIC IN GENERAL. That's why people disrespect the music industry so much - they are too greedy.
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is PAS? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
but I can't imagine forcing things into the public domain for living authors.
Why not? That's the way it originally worked.
If we went back to the original system, if the authors want to earn more money after their copyrights expire, they would have to get up off of their asses and work some more, just like the rest of us have to. If they don't want to have to work later in life, they should put some of their current earnings into a 401k, like the rest of us have to.
Re:For Profit? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about sharin' a lot of songs with the entire unknown world?
Re:Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
GP says shouldn't, but equally important these days is the greater realization that it's "can't": See Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org]
And this is a key point: The internet is a giant copying and storage machine. Where the old systems may have made sense due to the difficulty and expense of publishing and disseminating information, the internet has in fact cleared the way for knowledge to be fairly universal. Where we had technological and financial barriers to which copyright may have been a viable solution we now only have an artificial barrier holding progress back.
I'm not sure I understand your assertion.
Are you suggesting that without copyright we won't have any ideas? That's a non-starter that ends the conversation.
Are you suggesting that without copyright we will have less ideas? There I'll challenge you for proof of your assertion.
Of course, maybe I've really not understood what conclusion you were working towards.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:3, Insightful)
That is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? The original copyright terms in the U.S.did this. And since the purpose of copyright (at least in the U.S.) is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", it could be argued that lifetime copyrights are less useful in that promotion. If someone has the creativity, you don't want to give them incentives to create once and then sit on their laurels. You want to give them incentives to continue creating. Short copyright terms does this, lifetime copyright doesn't.
Re:No, they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
If falls in the PD, then no one should be allowed to profit
That's possibly the dumbest interpretation of "public domain" I've seen here, and that's saying a lot. Here's a biscuit!
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:4, Insightful)
But EMI don't own the particular soundwaves which comprise the Beatles' songs. Instead they own the very idea of these songs. EMI has sole and total ownership over the platonic ideals of which any particular instance of a Beatles song is merely a shadow. This ideal encompases any sound resembling the songs, any text resembling their lyrics, any album cover resembling theirs, any musical notes close enough to a Beatles tune.
In a very real sense, EMIs ownership of this music is analogous to them owning the number 537. A platonic ideal. 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. They own it now, and will probably own it in perpetuity, for the rest of eternity.
So which is crazier; this guys argument or the concept of copyrighted music itself?
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say they're about equal.
Sounds familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
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.'
Who'd have thought it? Preposterous arguments from a Santa Cruz Organisation.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is different from other people who run record labels how?
Re:I wouldn't listen to the naysayers (Score:3, Insightful)
fixed that for you.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybes its a good time for them to get on iTune (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that copyright should be reduced, but you lost me when you said:
If you are a programmer, you have the choice to write code, copyright it, and make money on it for as long as it is relevant.. mind you that's probably not decades, but it's also not an hourly rate then "No more money."
Just because you choose "work for hire" doesn't mean that's the only choice out there.
Re:Santa Cruz, California (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize that it's only one data point, but having a crack smoking mayor reelected is pretty crazy.