AfterDawn: News

RIAA suit against MP3tunes' CEO gets dismissed

New York District Judge William H. Pauley III has dismissed the RIAA's copyright infringment lawsuit against MP3Tunes' CEO Michael Robertson but has said the lawsuit against the company itself will go on as planned.

The lawsuit, brought forward by the RIAA on behalf of EMI and 14 other labels claims that MP3Tunes "infringed on copyrights as it offers an online music storage service, allowing users to upload their music collections and access them from virtually anywhere."



Robertson is quick to point out that much larger corporations offer the same exact service as his company does and that "MP3Tunes was targeted because of its comparatively small size, ensuring EMI an easier victory that would then be used to shut down similar services and cripple consumers’ rights." A few notable examples of other similar services are AOL’s Xdrive, Microsoft’s Skydrive and BT’s The Vault.

When the case is eventually ruled on it will determine whether customers can store their legally-obtained music in cloud services. MP3tunes currently has 150,000 customers who have uploaded their music into online "lockers." The music is then accessible from any web-enabled device.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 5 Oct 2008 17:15

• Previous article

• Warner tries to curb Korean piracy

• Next article

• RealDVD taken down temporarily

• 10 comments

• logan1957

  Well, another frivolous lawsuit brought by the Really Inept Association of Anal types. Now they want to stop people from storing their music online in a virtual drive. True it is accessible from any mobile device but to get it to your MP3 or iTunes player you would have to have the person's who uploaded it password to access the drive. I can't see anyone giving permission to browse someone's private collection of legally obtained music let alone allowing them to download it.
  
  This is just another example of just how desperate these clowns are. They have no legal grounds to claim that MP3Tunes is breaking copy right, as they can't access the drives themselves. This is just another attempt to say that no matter if you purchase the music, you have to follow THEIR rules if you want to listen to it.
  
  Here's hoping this judge realizes that this bunch of losers is trying to keep themselves at the top of the heap and their antiquated business model alive.
  
  Hell, maybe MP3Tunes should hire Ray Beckerman to defend them as he has a proven track record of kicking these clowns in the slats when they come up against him.

  5.10.2008 18:09 #1

• varnull

  Where is the copyright infringement? I can't see any. Judge should throw this whole case out.. not just one part of it.. under the anti-trust laws.
  

  
  
  Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work. The flower of carnage-shura no hana

  5.10.2008 18:24 #2

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by varnull: Where is the copyright infringement? I can't see any. Judge should throw this whole case out.. not just one part of it.. under the anti-trust laws.
  Its under distribution I believe, but one might be able to share the music with others but its no diffr4nt than sharing it offline.

  5.10.2008 20:22 #3

• pensfan12

  lol well done to EMI and the other 15 labels.
  
  What a waste of time, effort and resources.

  6.10.2008 03:18 #4

• varnull

  What distribution? This system is the same as having files on a network drive.
  There are plenty of other businesses and even ISP's providing online personal file storage. These things aren't like rapidshare or other file sharing sites... These systems are more like email attachment storage systems. (where I have lots of music and other stuff stored so I can access it from elsewhere)
  
  This is plain and simple malicious litigation by these big businesses against a small company trying to provide the same service as giant ISP's like BT who give away this exact service free for the first 6 months of a contract.
  
  The outcome of this case needs careful scrutiny, because it affects your very rights as to what you are allowed to have on your HDD or on any network drive.
  

  
  
  Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work. The flower of carnage-shura no hana

  6.10.2008 03:33 #5

• ALIS123

  "infringed on copyrights as it offers an online music storage service, allowing users to upload their music collections and access them from virtually anywhere."
  
  That's supposed to explain the copyright infridgement right? WTF? They dont even claim there is anything illegal going on, just that you can upload the music on a website and access it from anywhere. Is there some part in copyrights about not having permission to upload music to your own, accessible only by you, webservice?
  
  Whats next, riaa sues you if you burn your legally owned mp3's to a dvd and listen to the music on your dvd player?

  6.10.2008 06:05 #6

• miltex

  the riaa loses another one
  

  When the chips are down, you can count on miltex !

  7.10.2008 05:12 #7

• defgod

  Originally posted by ALIS123: Whats next, riaa sues you if you burn your legally owned mp3's to a dvd and listen to the music on your dvd player?Actually it might get to that if they have it their way. According to the likes of the MPAA and RIAA you don't actually own any digital media just the license to play or watch it.

  7.10.2008 23:42 #8

• varnull

  What about films, pictures and music I create myself? Do they own those as well??
  

  
  
  Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work. The flower of carnage-shura no hana

  7.10.2008 23:49 #9

• Mez

  logan1957, you got that right!
  
  Instead of reaping untold riches of the digital world they have chosen to put themselves out of business by going to war with the consumer for no good reason.
  
  They can only think of sucking the blood out of weak companies that may acutally be on 'their side'. They are truly governed by 'the dark side'.

  10.10.2008 08:53 #10