AfterDawn: Tech news

Site agrees to pay $950,000 for pirate Beatles music sales

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 29 Mar 2011 17:03 User comments (6)

Site agrees to pay $950,000 for pirate Beatles music sales Santa Cruz-based Media Rights Technologies has agreed to pay the Beatle's EMI Group label $950,000 to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Using its BlueBeat.com website, the company sold music tracks containing Beatles content for 25 cents each, before they were ever available on iTunes. The site also sold tracks from Radiohead, Coldplay and many other acts without acquiring a license to do so.

Media Rights had originally denied copyright infringement, saying it wasn't offering the original tracks but instead had re-recorded the music and inserted some new artistic effects based on a technique dubbed "psycho-acoustic simulation."

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker dismissed the argument. She described it as "obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language (that) appears to be a long-winded way of describing 'sampling.'" Beatles' tracks first appeared on the iTunes service in November after lengthy negotiations.

Tags: EMI
Previous Next  

6 user comments

129.3.2011 19:26

In a truly free market, this would not be illegal. Bah.

230.3.2011 10:49
lissenup3
Inactive

Originally posted by ROMaster2:
In a truly free market, this would not be illegal. Bah.
Your statement is just plain ignorant, dumb and without merit.

Of course, one could take that same point of horse's ass view with everything. "In a truly free world, people would be able to kill others"

"In a truly free market, business would be able to monopolize, stifle competition and engage in any business practice both fair and unfair as well as BRUTALLY unfair."

Copyright infringement is when 3 or more notes are duplicated (technically) and sampling without permission is taking from the original artist and capitalizing off their success.

YOU PIPE DOWN ROMMY!!!!

31.4.2011 14:49

If Disney didn't keep upping the copyright length, the Beatles tracks would either be in public domain now, or soon become public domain. (I'm not willing to look it up right now).

If they were in the public domain as they should be (now or at some point), then this would be legal.

Disney has done more damage to freedom than Sony, but you don't see the hate toward Disney as much. I'm going to Disneyland next week in fact. Bastards....

41.4.2011 19:04

Yeah, lets watch MRT declare bankruptcy and EMI won't see a cent.

517.5.2011 13:00

Originally posted by hastypete:
If Disney didn't keep upping the copyright length, the Beatles tracks would either be in public domain now, or soon become public domain. (I'm not willing to look it up right now).
I don't know what the "old" copyright law was but the one from 1978 says that it's "The life of the author plus 70 years". Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are both still alive so Beatles music is 100 (or more) years away from being Public Domain.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo

617.5.2011 17:02

Originally posted by lissenup3:
Your statement is just plain ignorant, dumb and without merit.

Of course, one could take that same point of horse's ass view with everything. "In a truly free world, people would be able to kill others"

"In a truly free market, business would be able to monopolize, stifle competition and engage in any business practice both fair and unfair as well as BRUTALLY unfair."

Copyright infringement is when 3 or more notes are duplicated (technically) and sampling without permission is taking from the original artist and capitalizing off their success.

YOU PIPE DOWN ROMMY!!!!
Normally I would write something back, but considering your record, and the fact you're suspended (at the time of this post), I really don't see much validity in your insulting 'argument'.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive