Website illegally sells Beatles music; sues Apple, Microsoft, others

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Website illegally sells Beatles music; sues Apple, Microsoft, others

Pages (2): 12 Next ›

Colonel Pancreas: Jun 17, 2004

"Ars Technica posted:

Every time Apple holds a new event, the speculation begins: will this announcement be the one in which The Beatles' music (legally) comes to the Internet? But it turns out that Apple was beaten to the punch by BlueBeat.com, which on October 30 began streaming unlimited plays from The Beatles' catalog (including the new remastered albums) and selling tracks for a quarter each.

It's at this point that you're probably asking yourself, "Self, who exactly is behind BlueBeat.com? I've never heard of it." It's true that BlueBeat.com is not well known as a music streaming destination, but you might know more than you suspect about the company behind it; Media Rights Technologies made waves back in 2007 when it sent cease-and-desist letters to Microsoft, Adobe, Radio, and Apple, demanding that the companies adopt its proprietary streamripper protection software, X1 SeCure Recording Control.

MRT has always made a big deal about copyright protection—though usually in the service of selling its DRM solutions. When I spoke to CEO Hank Risan briefly back in 2007, he insisted that he was driven by a love of music and a desire to see musicians get paid.

So are The Beatles getting paid? EMI has already told a UK newspaper that Bluebeat appears to be selling the tracks without permission, but BlueBeat insists that everything on its site is legitimate. "Our MP3s are fully-licensed audio-visual works and BlueBeat.com pays all applicable royalties," the site says.

MRT did not return our requests for comment, but a careful look at the BlueBeat site reveals something curious. The language above specifically says that the MP3s for sale at the site are "audio-visual works," the site's proprietary streaming player is called the "BlueBeat A/V player," and the site offers a link to the US Copyright Office in order to explain what an "audio-visual work" is.

This might sound like a generic designation, but it has a specific meaning in copyright law. As the Copyright Office makes clear, there is one exception to the category of "sound recording": "Under the copyright law, the sounds that accompany an audiovisual work, for example, a motion picture, are not defined as a sound recording." And A/V work is described as a "series of related images that are intended to be shown by the use of a machine or device, together with accompanying sounds, if any."

Given that MRT is so careful with the BlueBeat language on this point, and that the player does show album art and other graphics, it may be that the company is relying on some unusual understanding of copyright law to claim that its downloads are not sound recordings and thus come under a different licensing regime.

The copyright notice at the bottom of BlueBeat pages is also odd. It reads: "All audio-visual works copyright © 2009 (reg. # PAu 3-407-524) BlueBeat, Inc, a subsidiary of MRT. BlueBeat transmits simulated live musical performances for free at 160 and 320 kb/s." Again, the fixation is on "audio-visual works," though here it's clear that these are copyrighted by BlueBeat itself, not some other rightsholder.

Without an explanation or public response from MRT, however, it's hard to say what's going on here.

Non-standard legal theories were the basis for their 2007 letters against Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Real. At the time, MRT claimed that the companies were violating the DMCA by not using "effective" DRM in their streaming applications (iTunes, Windows Media Player, Flash player, and RealPlayer), and MRT threatened lawsuits unless its own DRM scheme was licensed by the companies. Nothing apparently came of this threat, which was certainly unusual—MRT was not a rightsholder.

The company then removed all iTunes links from BlueBeat and issued a press release in which it said that "Apple, Inc. does not have the required government licenses to manufacture and distribute content over the Internet, nor does Apple protect their content from serial copying."

Risan said at the time, "In my review of official government records and discussions with the US Copyright Office, I was shocked to discover that Apple did not obtain their compulsory licenses. MRT will not condone copyright infringement nor risk infringement liability for our customers and partners. Until Apple is fully compliant with government regulations, iTunes will not be permitted on our sites."

In any event, the company is back in the news once more, stirring up another controversy over music licensing, this time using one of the biggest bands in the world. While the situation certainly sounds... murky, there's a part of us that badly wants MRT to succeed here. Who wouldn't want legal copies of The Beatles catalogue for a quarter each?

Normally I don't feel compelled to post about random stories, but there's just something strangely and beautifully ironic about this whole situation that makes me smile. It's like allofmp3 decided to set up shop right here in the US, and then decided to sue every major digital distributor for...well, I'm honestly confused about that part. As far as I can tell, their legal theory is based around some questionable loophole concerning "audiovisual performances," and it seems like a pretty big stretch to be selling mp3s without permission under that banner. In regard to the lawsuit, all I can really say is I wish I had some of the

they were on when they decided to go for that. I particularly liked the attempt at tit-for-tat retaliation against Apple. I poked around on their website but didn't want to register for anything, so I honestly don't know how their actual player/sales process works. The article is kind of vague on whether buying a song gives you the files or just allows you to stream them on the website. Either way, if they aren't paying the labels I don't see how it could be legal.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 06:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Nov 21, 2009 11:18

zarbicore: Mar 13, 2004; The sun sets forever over Blackwater Park

This should cause a pretty entertaining shitfight if nothing else.

You have to love people with balls like this CEO does.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 07:33

betaraywil: Dec 30, 2006; Wil

So does that mean a youtube video of your favorite Paramore song with a background slideshow of images of the band can be construed as an Audio-Visual whatever and thus constitutes a new work?

I mean, obviously not in reality, but if these guys stick to their guns?

Although come to think of it, they're still derivative works. Unless the copyright code has some really specific protection in place that says "if something is an audio-visual work you can swipe the soundtrack and pair it with new video and that's no longer derivative" it shouldn't matter that there's a slide show. Not that I'm an attorney or anything.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 13:26

Yodzilla: Apr 29, 2005

I'm going to invent a new kind of car door lock and then sue every single automobile manufacturer in the world for not using using my lock because it's obviously superior to theirs.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:22

Lycurgus: Mar 02, 2009; by Ozma

Dude's got brass balls the size of my loving head.

Kudos to him.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:29

Noni: Jul 08, 2003; Can't post for 472 hours!

So if a brown note causes people to poo poo themselves, then is a blue beat supposed to be a beat that causes people to ejaculate or what?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:32

KungfooMF: Feb 21, 2002

I saw this yesterday and nearly broke down and bought the newly remastered mono box set for a whopping $53. It is really tempting, but I'm afraid of getting busted later.

They are streaming it all too so you can just listen for free.

I'm sure they are about to get smacked, but until then you can have their albums for like $5 each! It's insane. You pay using paypal.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:35

OK Some Butt Stuff: Jun 09, 2002; Rock for Light

Noni posted:

So if a brown note causes people to poo poo themselves, then is a blue beat supposed to be a beat that causes people to ejaculate or what?

It causes them to almost ejaculate.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:40

Spanish Matlock: Sep 06, 2004

zarbicore posted:

This should cause a pretty entertaining shitfight if nothing else.

You have to love people with balls like this CEO does.

You have to love people with balls like this CEO [loves people with balls]?

This sounds like it should provide a bounty of interesting legal maneuvering. This is like the corporate version of a slapfight.

quote:

I'm sure they are about to get smacked, but until then you can have their albums for like $5 each! It's insane. You pay using paypal.

Oooh, more interesting. What is the legal status of mp3s downloaded by the users of that site? What's the deal with victims of fraud in that case. Do they have rights?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:46

CaptainCaveman: Apr 16, 2005; The hatch, Jack. All of it happened so that we could open the hatch.

I see where the article says they sent out letters and threatened lawsuits, and I see where it says that nothing came of the threats.

Am I missing something? Where are you getting that they sued anyone?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:48

Spengler: Aug 25, 2004; death or glory, just another story

according to their "unique legal theory", pretty much every YouTube takedown notice ever issued for background music would be null and void. I'm not stealing your IP, I'm creating an original audiovisual work!

# ? Nov 04, 2009 14:50

diospadre: May 24, 2003

KungfooMF posted:

I saw this yesterday and nearly broke down and bought the newly remastered mono box set for a whopping $53. It is really tempting, but I'm afraid of getting busted later.

They are streaming it all too so you can just listen for free.

I'm sure they are about to get smacked, but until then you can have their albums for like $5 each! It's insane. You pay using paypal.

Why don't you just download it off a torrent instead? Does the fact that you're paying somebody, even if they're "stealing", it make it ok?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:01

KungfooMF: Feb 21, 2002

Spanish Matlock posted:

Oooh, more interesting. What is the legal status of mp3s downloaded by the users of that site? What's the deal with victims of fraud in that case. Do they have rights?

I haven't seen any articles discussing the end user. I just don't know. If you pay using Paypal there is no doubt Apple/EMI will know you did it. Any injunction they ask for is sure to request a list of people who downloaded. But will they care? Probably. Will they have legal right? That is the mystery. I would have purchased the mono box set if I knew I was safe.

diospadre posted:

Why don't you just download it off a torrent instead? Does the fact that you're paying somebody, even if they're "stealing", it make it ok?

No. You missed the part where I didn't download it. I don't want to steal it. That's why I am waiting for the legal action to get resolved. Which also means I am paying $250 for the box set because I am sure this is illegal.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:03

Ghost Hat: Jun 25, 2009

diospadre posted:

Why don't you just download it off a torrent instead? Does the fact that you're paying somebody, even if they're "stealing", it make it ok?

It takes the legal blame off your own back and sticks it on theirs for one.

edit: In this particular case of course.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 15:07

Trident: Jun 18, 2004; We cook your meals, we drive your ambulances. We connect your calls, we guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.

Ghost Hat posted:

It takes the legal blame off your own back and sticks it on theirs for one.

edit: In this particular case of course.

No, it certainly doesn't. Possessing something sold illegally is still illegal. Just like possession of stolen goods.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 16:53

xie: Jul 29, 2004; If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it.

Trident posted:

No, it certainly doesn't. Possessing something sold illegally is still illegal. Just like possession of stolen goods.

It's not quite so easy to possess mp3 tracks that's half the reason this fight exists in the first place.

Also you have to knowingly possess stolen goods, if you buy something from a completely legitimate store and it turns out to be hot, you're not going to be liable.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 16:59

Kung Food: Dec 11, 2006

Anything that would legitimize Anime Music Videos is stupid and wrong.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 17:09

JEEVES420: Feb 16, 2005; The world is a mess... and I just need to rule it

Trident posted:

No, it certainly doesn't. Possessing something sold illegally is still illegal. Just like possession of stolen goods.

As it stands it is not illegal. You can assume it is but they have not been arrested for selling the tracks and therefor you are not committing a crime by purchasing them. Now if they were arrested and still selling them and you purchased it then thats a whole other argument.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 17:22

everdave: Nov 14, 2005; For The Record...

Up until this point BlueBeat was/is a legit site that did something akin (but different) than Pandora and the like. How do I know? For the past 18 months (or more) I have been getting a lot of orders from BlueBeat for CD's (I sell used CD's on Amazon). Worried that it was some kind of scam or something I researched them over a year ago and it is a Pandora (was) like service or something. Like Pandora (who I also get orders from) they get their music for streaming by purchasing physical CD's.

Don't know where this Beatles thing came from tho - they have either lost it or have something up their sleeves!

When I researched them I found a great interview about what they were doing with the founder, but now all this Beatles news is swamping google results so unfortunately I do not have the time to dig it up...

# ? Nov 04, 2009 17:34

mobo85: Apr 21, 2007; BUILD FIRE TRUCK

Apparently, Apple Corps themselves are getting into selling the Beatles digitally legally themselves as well- although there are still no plans for MP3 downloads, they recently announced a limited-edition Beatles USB containing the entire catalogue.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 17:43

bear is driving!: Apr 06, 2005; how can that be?

Trident posted:

No, it certainly doesn't. Possessing something sold illegally is still illegal. Just like possession of stolen goods.

You are right, but the website makes a big deal about saying the purchase is legal. If you walked into wal-mart (identical in every way to a real one) and bought a dvd, then were later told it was a fake wal-mart and you had an invalid receipt, who does the legal burden fall on? There was no way for you to know that it was a fake store.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 17:53

The Mentalizer: Sep 09, 2005

betaraywil posted:

So does that mean a youtube video of your favorite Paramore song with a background slideshow of images of the band can be construed as an Audio-Visual whatever and thus constitutes a new work?

I mean, obviously not in reality, but if these guys stick to their guns?

Although come to think of it, they're still derivative works. Unless the copyright code has some really specific protection in place that says "if something is an audio-visual work you can swipe the soundtrack and pair it with new video and that's no longer derivative" it shouldn't matter that there's a slide show. Not that I'm an attorney or anything.

No, it can't. I'm fairly certain the law is referring to sound that is recorded along with picture. I.E. dialogue recorded while shooting a scene for a movie. It seems like these guys are being willfully ignorant of what the law actually means. Not that I'm a lawyer either, but I do know that an entirely different set of rules governs musical compositions used in tv shows and movies.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 19:41

mobo85: Apr 21, 2007; BUILD FIRE TRUCK

EMI is now suing Bluebeat over the unauthorized use of Beatles music, so it appears the thing isn't legit after all.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 20:14

Mister Kingdom: Dec 14, 2005; It's so nice to be insane, no one asks you to explain.

Sounds like an attempt to become an American version of AllofMP3.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 20:20

The Gasmask: Nov 30, 2006; Ask me about my hot cousin.

This is quite surreal, threatening to sue pretty much everyone for piracy since they don't use your specific form of DRM. I don't get how that conclusion was made though, since they're claiming that copyrighted images + copyrighted music = brand new work they own the rights to.

gently caress, I might as well start switching movies and their soundtracks around and sell them for a hefty profit. Anyone interested in Boondock's List/Schindler's Saints?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 22:45

Mister Macys: Apr 21, 2007; Ask me about being a movie-quoting, bandwagon-hopping lemming.

The Gasmask posted:

This is quite surreal, threatening to sue pretty much everyone for piracy since they don't use your specific form of DRM. I don't get how that conclusion was made though, since they're claiming that copyrighted images + copyrighted music = brand new work they own the rights to.

gently caress, I might as well start switching movies and their soundtracks around and sell them for a hefty profit. Anyone interested in Boondock's List/Schindler's Saints?

How about, "The UHF Matrix?

# ? Nov 04, 2009 23:13

Sashiva: Mar 27, 2007; Down in Flames...

mobo85 posted:

EMI is now suing Bluebeat over the unauthorized use of Beatles music, so it appears the thing isn't legit after all.

Even though BlueBeat is almost undoubtedly not legit, the mere presence of a EMI lawsuit doens't mean poo poo as to whether something is legal or not. For instance ASCAP just lost a lawsuit that alleged that ringtones constituted a concert, thus ASCAP wanted additional royalties.

The big studios are greedy bastards. Yes, they will sue anyone over anything to get more money, so a lawsuit out of all the big studios is expected.

All this being said, BlueBeat is totally nuts.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 23:20

Vizin: Sep 03, 2007; Eighty-seven.

Trident posted:

No, it certainly doesn't. Possessing something sold illegally is still illegal. Just like possession of stolen goods.

If someone pawns a stolen XBox and you buy it, you're not a criminal. It can be confiscated, sure, but as long as you didn't know it was stolen you're in the clear.

(source)

I don't know how it would work with buying an mp3 from an unlicensed seller, but I'd assume it's the same. You might be asked to delete the file, but you haven't committed copyright infringement.

# ? Nov 04, 2009 23:40

Lego Stormtrooper: Jul 29, 2008

Well, I'm siding with BlueBeat on this one. Not cause they are right, but because of BALLS basically.

If it turns out these guys are right and what they are doing is legal, then it means youtube will be unhindered by money-grubbing corporate media whores, and little timmys birthday party clip can have sound again, even though there was a radio in the background playing the latest pop-hits.

PS. Can this guy also start recording and selling "Happy Birthday" I am pissed off as hell that that song is under copyright.

# ? Nov 05, 2009 00:41

wacky: Jun 19, 2008

Lego Stormtrooper posted:

If it turns out these guys are right and what they are doing is legal, then it means youtube will be unhindered by money-grubbing corporate media whores, and little timmys birthday party clip can have sound again, even though there was a radio in the background playing the latest pop-hits.

yeah, see this has never happened. ever. if you put a song on a montage of your favorite anime then yeah you might get sound taken down. but ive seen a lot of people who havent had it taken down not to mention ridiculous amounts of movies that can be pretty much be pieced together through youtube scenes.

# ? Nov 05, 2009 01:10

Spaceman Future!: Feb 09, 2007; Interplanetary explorer extraordinaire!

This is kindof odd, what are they claiming is the video component of their media? I mean, power to them but they went well out of their way to make sure they were sued immediately, they must have some sort of odd kink in their distribution method that they can prove gives them rights to use it.

I hope they win anyway, someone waving their dicks at the RIAA is always entertaining.

# ? Nov 05, 2009 01:11

Mastiff: Jun 02, 2000; Dusty, man, you craaaaaazy.

OK Some Butt Stuff posted:

It causes them to almost ejaculate.

Smiiiiirrrk.

# ? Nov 05, 2009 01:47

chemosh6969: Jul 03, 2004; Walker...is a dangerous man..! Lee Marvin IS Walker, in Point Blank!

mobo85 posted:

EMI is now suing Bluebeat over the unauthorized use of Beatles music, so it appears the thing isn't legit after all.

Just because a company sues another one, doesn't mean the other side won't win.

It seems like they researched the laws and found a way to do it. It's up to a judge now to decide the future of rock 'n roll.

# ? Nov 05, 2009 02:23

xsuperkidx: Sep 21, 2000

They are very careful with their legal language. You dont get sound recordings, you get audio/visual works, which are very different copyright-wise. Ballsy, for sure, but might a loophole for now as long.

(but EMI is probably going to drag the case out until they fold from legal costs anyway)

# ? Nov 05, 2009 02:26

ManiacClown: May 30, 2002; Gone, gone, O honky man,
And rise the M.C. Etrigan!

Vizin posted:

If someone pawns a stolen XBox and you buy it, you're not a criminal. It can be confiscated, sure, but as long as you didn't know it was stolen you're in the clear.

(source)

While this is generally true, you can be held liable if you have "constructive" knowledge— that is to say, if you didn't know but you should have. For example, a guy's selling stuff out of the back of a van. You don't ask questions because you figure that way you can't take any heat for it. Depending on your jurisdiction, you're probably wrong.

# ? Nov 06, 2009 07:11

Ithaqua: Jul 18, 2003; Only in Kenya.

Here's the footnote to this article:

"...and then thousands of high-priced lawyers descended upon them."

Right and wrong don't matter in the world of lawyers. It's who can pay the most money for the longest period of time.

# ? Nov 06, 2009 07:14

Colonel Aureliano: Feb 17, 2009

Hmmm. It looks like somebody has found a copy of the SCO playbook.

What is Darl McBride doing these days?

# ? Nov 06, 2009 08:35

MagnifiedX: Jan 31, 2003; Atom Splitting Retard

A judge yesterday granted EMI's Restraining Order Request against BlueBeat, Inc.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009...-beatles-songs/

# ? Nov 06, 2009 19:03

skander: Apr 17, 2003

Colonel Aureliano posted:

Hmmm. It looks like somebody has found a copy of the SCO playbook.

What is Darl McBride doing these days?

Well, he was recently fired by SCO...

# ? Nov 07, 2009 00:22

swolf: Aug 25, 2004; i need instructions on how to rock

skander posted:

Well, he was recently fired by SCO...

BlueBeat is based in Santa Cruz, CA. Guess what the SC in SCO stands for?

# ? Nov 07, 2009 00:55

Rate Thread:

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Website illegally sells Beatles music; sues Apple, Microsoft, others

Pages (2): 12 Next ›