Monitored Alarm Systems

poorly in most key points in his lawsuit against Michael Robertson and MP3tunes stupid, EMI turned down and told the judge that he committed two errors in its initial decision, and asked him to reconsider two. However, in an amended resolution (embedded below) Judge William Pauley has not only rejected the claims of EMI, but he says their arguments, which could make any call EMI much more difficult.

The two key points, as we discussed two months ago, is whether or not pre-1972 sound recordings were subjected to the DMCA ... MP3Tunes if not actually had a policy of treatment of offenders. The issue of pre-1972 is very, very important to record companies. As mentioned, before 1972 sound recordings are not protected by federal law, but the restrictive laws of copyright of the State. Whether or not these songs are covered by the DMCA is a key element in planning for the label of its legal strategy. The lawsuit against Universal Grooveshark, for example, only focused on the songs before 1972, to try to cut Grooveshark DMCA safe harbors argument. But the court finds

great

detail why this is a false argument that the DMCA safe harbors were designed to cover all copyright works, even those not covered Copyright by the federal government:
interpretation
EMI 301 (c) would eliminate the effects of the DMCA. "When a law firm as a whole shows that the interpretation of one of the parties would lead to" absurd or futile results ... in clear contradiction with the policy of the legislation as a whole, "the interpretation must be rejected." C. Yerdon Henry ,.... As mentioned, the DMCA was enacted to clarify the copyright for Internet service providers to promote the Internet fast and robust. Limiting the DMCA for records after 1972, excluding pre-1972 recordings, creating legal uncertainty and subject otherwise innocent Internet service providers to liability for acts of third parties. After all, is not always easy (and much less noticeable) if a song was recorded before or after 1972. Safety zones of the plain meaning ofThe DMCA, read in light of its purpose, covering both the state and the author claims the federal government. Therefore, the DMCA applies to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972.

The second key point, the presentation of EMI for reconsideration

rang

strong considering only the side of EMI history. It is alleged that the judge misconstrued certain claims by employees Robertson and MP3tunes, suggesting that the company does not really stop repeat offenders. However, it seems that the quotes were taken out of context EMI too, and the judge had no problem putting them back into context and see that MP3Tunes, in fact, appropriately dealing with repeat offenders. In fact, the judge stated directly that EMI 'bad' deposition testimony of Robertson. A judge trying to catch up with the wrong ... probably not good for you. But perhaps more importantly, the judge makes clear that a cabinet MP3Tunes music as there is no legal reason why the company must automatically cut someone is a repeat offender, like all the downloaded files are for personal use and not to the Internet in general.

egregious offenders are generally those who download unauthorized content or by mail, allowing others to experience or copying work. See Viacom against YouTube .... (Search for a reasonable policy that users who terminated the downloaded content after the warning). See also 10 Grp, Inc. v. Veoh Networks ... (The same). The record shows that MP3tunes users "not to download content to the Internet, but the copy songs from other sites for your personal entertainment. There is a difference between (1) users know that the lack of authority and again, to download content to the Internet to the world of experience or the copy, and (2) users to download content for personal use and not forgetting the rights of others. The first are the obvious offenders providers Internet services are required to prohibit on their websites. The latter, as MP3tunes users sideload content of their closets for personal use, not sure that the material is discharged violates the rights of others.

The court also notes that while managers MP3Tunes discussed some places where people access the files and moved them to MP3Tunes own storage space, and I wondered if they were fake, they n 'had no way to know, officially, if the files have actually been reached:

For example, employees of e-mails reveal MP3tunes discussions about the legitimacy of certain third party sites and at least one occasion, a recommendation for a site side mount removed. com. But finally, there is no evidence that MP3tunes officers or employees had knowledge of the sites linked to Sideload.com are not allowed. (See Bart Decl. Exs. 64-66). While knowledge is not an element of copyright infringement, which is relevant to the decision of a service provider if there are appropriate circumstances to terminate the user account.


This is important for a number of reasons too, including the standard application of the defenders of the system of copyright, insisting that "of course" when something is counterfeit and sites should have to remove the contents. As this Court correctly recognized, it is not at all obvious to violate the law, but may have been transferred by an authorized person. Or it may be fair use.
Find best price for : --sideload----DMCA----Robertson----Michael--