Judge: EMI can sue MP3tunes, not Michael Robertson

Michael Robertson, MP3tunes founder, got some good news from a judge. His company wasn't as lucky.

(Credit: Michael Robertson)

A federal judge has dismissed a copyright-infringement lawsuit filed by EMI Group against Michael Robertson, founder of MP3tunes.

The bad news for Robertson, who also founded MP3.com and Linspire is that the judge allowed EMI, one of the four largest recording companies, to continue to pursue the copyright claims against MP3tunes, court documents show.

The case, filed last November in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was brought by 14 record companies and music publishers affiliated with EMI.

MP3tunes enables users to store music in the so-called cloud. The company's 150,000 customers upload their music into "lockers." They can then access the tunes from nearly any Web-enabled device.

EMI argues that MP3tunes doesn't have authorization to exploit the company's music this way. A representative from EMI couldn't be reached for comment late Wednesday evening.

Few in Silicon Valley know their way around a courtroom as well as Robertson. After founding MP3.com, which also enabled users to upload songs into digital music lockers, the major labels and publishing company took him to court. What's unique about EMI's most recent suit is that the recording company went after him personally.

"Suing CEOs personally is a nasty tactic media companies are engaging in to intimidate individuals," Robertson said in an e-mail. The tactic forces them to "either enter into a settlement or face the possibility" of financial hardship.

District Judge William Pauley said in dismissing the case that he didn't have jurisdiction over Robertson in New York. As for the continuing fight his company faces against EMI, Robertson said "the case against MP3tunes will determine if it is permissible for consumers to store their music in online commercial services for everywhere access, directly analogous to the way they currently store documents, photos, and other personal data in cloud services."

[dascha1]

Thanks Greg for the news. Here's a suggestion to cover in the Music Industry who happens to be one of my classmates (i.e. the same program as me). He is a very humble and likable guy and without question a true leader in the Music Industry. The only problem is you probably won't see his picture at this link:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_julian_king/
http://www.jmu.edu/music/

Keep up the good reporting in digital music and video.

[Cheese McBeese]

So even though there is no implied sharing going on, EMI just doesn't want their *customers* to be able to use their purchases in a convenient way? What a bunch of w@nkers!

[Renegade Knight]

Bingo. The company doesn't enagle sharing, pirating or anything else. Customers merely have a cloud based storage system. Same as all the backup companies.

[E B]

It's called COPYRIGHT -- that is, it's the RIGHT to make a COPY. If you are COPYing files to another source without permission, then it's a violation.

The only chance they have is the fair use exception, but that's highly unlikely to apply here. If I buy music, the fair use exception applies to me, not to a third-party who wants to provide a value-added service. If I'm copying them for backup purposes and it's clear it's only for backup purposes, I'm covered -- but if I'm copying them to make them more accessible and to benefit from multilple copies, then I'm probably in violation.

A backup company that backs up all kinds of data wouldn't be in trouble. A company that specifically targets protected content ought to know the law better.

[sadchild]

a year or so ago, a favorite band of mine (Celldweller) was releasing a new song. i wanted to buy it from mp3tunes so once it was available on itunes and all the other services, i emailed mp3tunes asking when the new song would be added (they already had other Celldweller songs on there). the response was to go buy it somewhere else because adding new songs wasn't a priority. i was floored!

[Trane Francks]

You must be thinking of some other site; MP3tunes doesn't sell music.

[umbrae]

Hopefully this lawsuits fails, because if it succeeds then it means storing MP3s on a networked server is illegal. This would encompass storing them on a file share or any device other than the one playing it.

At this rate, we will soon have to pay every time we listen to a song even if we own it. Ridiculous!

[bullm47]

Well there is one way to wake up the music industry. I mean once we purchase a song or album, it is our right to play them where it is pleasurable and convenient to us. Isn't that why we purchase in the first place? So let"s not purchase. Let's not buy any music from anywhere for a full week. What kind of revenues would be lost? Not so good for the artists either and so they would definitely put pressure on the recording companies as well. In order for this to work, everyone, every where would have to stop purchasing. After all, it is our purchases that keep the recording companies in business.

[skrubol]

Unlike gas boycots you see in emails going around, this could actually have some effect. All the RIAA cares about is the bottom line, and music is a luxury, so consumers do have the ability to send a message that they'll hear.

It'll still never happen though. Even if it did, I'm sure the RIAA would sue the organizers.

[karpenterskids]

Yeah, sadly...getting the word around (not to mention getting everyone to AGREE to it) is so much harder than it sounds...

[kboateng]

I love music but hate the recording companies. They make no sense in the allegations and law suits. And then they wonder why no one wants to buy CDs anymore

[Michichael]

So why haven't they sued any personal media servers that allow a user to upload their music and videos to a home server and stream it over a slingbox to play on their TV or other devices? Same concept right? Instead of a LAN server, you upload it to a WAN server. You still have to log in to retrieve and play it. Now I assume that they've got some kind of monitoring to disallow somebody from uploading to their server and giving the account info out.... i.e. now 20 people from different states are logging in. That wouldn't be allowed, but that's not the service's fault if that happens. There is no basis for this lawsuit.

I look forward to seeing them get owned.

[pj-mckay]

Its a crazy legacy of the mid nineties. It isn't so long ago that there was no real means of opying music and NO video apart from cinema. Say 1970, then allong came Philips and their cassettes, and Sony followed with their fantastic portables. From having to buy a record the music industry had to try and cope and it was deemed illegal to copy your record and play it on your player. In their mind we should buy a pre-recorded cassette too. Since then audio and video technology is basically in another world BUT the likes of EMI haven't moved at all. It's up to them to get real; lower the cost of media to the end user; and start to make the modern systems work for them before they lose out totally. I'm no fan of itunes but at least it offers the choice to purchase a good track as opposed to a good 1 plus the other 10 crap ones on an album basis. Until they get a grip on reality we'll all just download and accept that some of those aren't at the best bit rates, or have the odd dropout. Meanwhile they'll pursue the weakest in the hope of killing the market. They don't have a hope of winning but many folk will end up crushed financially and that's the saddest thing about all this power, and crazy laws around 'ownership'. We apparently don't own the media... we own the right to play that one piece, on one gadget, for one person to hear.

EMI and others.... let's embrace the modern world and move with it !

[Cheese McBeese]

Yes Michichael, you're write. Provided there is no sharing going on, this is exactly like putting your legal MP3s on your home server, except you have someone else maintaining it for you. This lawsuit is nonsense.