WebProNews

It's my opinion that yes, absolutly EMI is right to file suit. Offering "free music" to the public that they do not own any rights to is blatent copyright infringement. Even if he doesn't store it. It's the same as breaking in to my recording studio and allowing the public access to my files without my permission or the artists permission. What is being stolen here is intelectual property, not a storage medium. It is my opinion mp3.com is at least facilitating copyright infringement by the public, and could also be illegally exploiting these artists by using them to make their website more popular or profitable. If you musicians want to have a musical career or for your sons and daughters to have one this has to be stopped or their won't be any more music careers for anyone. Also by saying the music industry should consider more methods of distribution is another admission of guilt. That's what they are claiming to be right? And it's not just the words and music from the artist that are under copyright protection, it's also the sound recording or mix (sound production) of that particular performance that is also under copyright protection, which is really being violated here too.

It seems to me when someone makes money at something someone else wants to destroy it. It’s only storage. If they want to shut you down than they EMI should buy everyone an external hard drive to store there music and pics. I was once sued by CAPITOL RECORDS for downloading music from KAAZA. And I was in jail at the time. How can I be at fault if I had no control over my computer??? That incident cost me over 5k. By GOD let them try it this time I either own my songs or tunes on cassette, CD or vinyl. At the time of installing KAAZA they are the ones who installed the shared file folder not me. And Grokster wrote the software for it. Because it was all federal it’s more difficult to fight. I even paid a lawyer 1k at the time and he walked away with the money and left me hanging so I paid for 6 songs .He told me I made a couple of calls and that justified the cost. If I had the money right now I would go after all the people that I mentioned. I don’t know if there is a statue of limitations on federal cases. It just never ends Money and GREED. Half the singers can’t even sing. Supporting there drug habits for some. All I need is a couple of people playing instruments and I formed a Band. Music is in my family. GOOD luck. I don’t use or even herd of mp3tunes I apologize.
FREDD

It seems an AWFUL LOT of people seem to forget the definition of "copying", which is to make an EXACT DUPLICATE of something...
UNLESS you are making a direct transfer from the ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING, you are NOT, in the true spirit of the definition, making a "copy"...
If you are "compressing" the recording by transcoding it to MP3, you have NOT made a "copy" you have made a "facsimile", therefore it is NOT subject to coverage...
Anytime you make a transcode using most any of the recent transcoders, you incur losses, ask ANY digital expert...
I have been in the Electronics field for 35 years, and in Television for over 12, I used to be involved in "Pressing Vinyl" for Albums in the old days, and we ran into similar problems with it, as well... No "pressing" was ever sonically as good as the original plate, but we did as best we could with the equipment we had, and I suspect, in 50 years, someone ELSE will be saying the very same thing about OUR time, so don't think this is a recent problem...
I fault the record labels themselves, for the most part, primarily for being run by a conglomerate of old men who have no working grasp of the current technologies available to them, and for being too lazy to adapt their business models to encompass the new technologies, rather than villify them, and stifling the artists themselves in the process...
NO WONDER more and more, artists are turning to people like me to release their art, or, are producing it themselves...