EMI: backing up music files online is illegal
EMI is suing MP3tunes because the online backup service lets you keep your music in your own locker -- EMI says that it's a violation of copyright to use online backup services:
As you may be aware, the major record label EMI has sued MP3tunes, claiming our service is illegal. You can read about the case here. Much is at stake — if you don't have the right to store your own music online then you won't have the right to store ebooks, videos and other digital products as well. The notion of ownership in the 21st century will evaporate. The idea of ownership is important to me and I want to make sure I have that right and my kids do too.Link (via /.)
the latest
latest episodes
So, technically as consumers we don't have the right to ownership. We pay, consume, share, buy, support and according to them, backing up culture is illegal.
EMI is more like an annoying restrictive can't do or touch anything landlord than an organization related to the musical arts.
I suspect they mistook MP3tunes for a file-uploading-and-sharing service. To a large extent, those seem to be the new p2p for file sharers.
Wait - what am I saying? Of course people use this for file sharing. (It's not too hard to create a temp account, put some stuff there, then distribute the username/password to your friends/whoever).
That doesn't lessen the fact that EMI are indiscriminately attacking a service which can be used both for legit (music backup) and illegal (music sharing) activities.
It's sorta like a Hollywood studio suing a manufacturer of VHS recorders, because they *could* be used to illegally copy and distribute their films.
Am I the only one who thinks of the Sex Pistols song "EMI" every time one of these insane stories sees print?
Unlimited supply (E.M.I)
There is no reason why (E.M.I)
I tell you it was all a frame (E.M.I)
They only did it 'cos of fame (E.M.I)
I do not need the pressure (E.M.I)
I can't stand those useless fools (E.M.I)
Unlimited supply (E.M.I)
Hello E.M.I
Goodbye A & M
Of course, let's link to an online service which is hosting this file:
http://tinyurl.com/58x46p
EMI can go take a flying fuck at the mooooooon!
this could actually be pretty good news. the 1984 Sony decision said that video recorder users had a right to "time-shift" media content like television without risking copyright violation.
all the p2p cases have failed in trying to analogize time-shifting to place-shifting, the idea that if you own/have license to content you should be able to watch it where- in addition to whenever you want. thing is, all the p2p cases (napster, etc) have been brought against services that allowed open access, and basically failed on that point- the court calling bullshit on the proposition that people were only using napster/kazaa/whatever to access files they had a right to.
this is one of the first cases that i'm aware of in which technical protections exist restricting file access to personal use by the individual who has legitimate license to it. because the case is about file storage/remote access- and not sharing- there's a good chance EMI has overstepped their bounds.
from a technical/legal standpoint there's not much difference between accessing a network share through a VPN and accessing it via the web- if anything this service is more restrictive- and yeah, while it's easy to circumvent access restrictions, that's gonna be a hard argument for EMI to analogize to p2p networks since there's already legal protection in place to keep that from happening- the DMCA.
that said, it's hard to know if that's really what's going on, since there's no link to any actual court documents.
(obviously this post seeks to provide information & is commentary on a recent news piece. it doesn't offer advice and shouldn't be relied upon- probably not even in light conversation).
fyi, here's a sweet piece of software allowing you to listen to your home music collection from another computer: http://www.jinzora.com obviously using it without discussing the implications with your favorite copyright lawyer is a terrible idea. in fact, forget i even mentioned it.
EMI demanded that MP3tunes commit copyright infringement on a massive scale in EMI's behalf.. EMI wanted **copies** of every song on MP3tunes 300 terabytes of server space--regardless of whether EMI owned the copyright. MP3tunes doesn't have the right to make copies yet EMI had the gumption to demand MP3tunes break the law. Hypocrites.
On the server side just rename *.mp3 to *.jpg automatically when uploaded, and convert them back on demand. Is it against the law to host a graphical bitmap?
If that .jpg can be re-converted into a recognizable MP3, then yes, it is arguably illegal. It would be like turning a Photoshop installer into a ZIP archive.
The other problem with this is that those of us who collaborate with musicians use these kinds of services to share works in progress.
Just last night I was using a similar service to listen to an MP3 that I'm having a friend create for the sound track of a video I'm doing.
@ markfrei:
You hit the nail on the head. And if EMI forces such a service to hand over your original material, you can sue for copyright infringement.
I would only suggest that MP3tunes allow the law to work for them. And us.
Whoops. Spoke too soon. EMI is denied access to the files.
http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=259
Greed is the word. The record companies want cash and they want it bad. This is the commercial music industry in a nutshell.
This could be a step towards unraveling the argument that making available = infringement. If it's ruled that it's legal to store copies of your tunes online, then it becomes a question of how much security on those files is considered a reasonable effort to keep them from being available to others. That seems a murky enough topic to me that eventually the focus of infringement will shift back to the downloader, but I think cases against downloaders are unwinnable. It's much harder to prove on that end. I don't know of any that have been brought by the record companies.
I wonder what these companies will do when we will be able to download 700 mb of data in several seconds, like the "internet" that CERN developed for their Boson-Higgs experiment to handle all the data. They are the ones that developed the Internet at the beginning. The article I read talked about remote access of all your data because of high speed transmissions. And today I just read about molecular memory being developed in Russia that can store several petabytes of data on a carbon based chip. These technologies are coming soon within 5 to 10 years so all this fighting over copyrights will be for nothing. It is the same fight that people did with the tobacco companies. Did it stop people from smoking? No. People will find a way to make and distribute copies or backups, no matter what the technology is. The easiest way to avoid all this is to make a copy unto a tape cassette or usb stick and mail it over night. Maybe not high tech but you will get your music or video.
EMI = Enema Munchers International