BMG, Napster ruling
p2pnet.net News:- It’s supremely ironic that Germany’s BMG (Bertelsmann) is the victim in a venal copyright violation attack by song writers Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller, the Frank Music Corporation and Peer International Music Corporation, with UMG and the Harry Fox agency lurking in the background.
Sony BMG is one of the four owners of the Big Music cartel that’s currently trying to sue consumers into buying lack-lustre, over-priced ‘product’ for, Yup, copyright violation. The other three cartel owners are UMG (France), EMI (UK) and Warner (USA).
In April last year, Leiber, et al, claimed Bertelsmann AG, Bertelsmann and BeMusic had, “engaged in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement by virtue of their investment in and control of Napster” which BMG snapped up once its fellow cartel owners had killed it.
Now Judge Maralyn Patel has ruled on Bertelsmann’s summary judgment motion and, “rejected the notion that indexing songs on Napster was direct copyright infringement, a significant victory for the defense file, but let the case go forward based on theories of infringement by Napster users” posts Cathy Kirkman on the Silicon Valley Media Law blog, adding:
“The court also certified class action status by music publishers affiliated with the Harry Fox Agency against Bertelsmann.”
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Silicon Valley Media Law – Rulings in Napster investor liability litigation, June 2, 2005
June 4th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
I don’t see the word “Pirate” being used anywhere.
Rick
June 4th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
This case is funny.
Peer, as plaintiff is claiming that the mere indexing of songs files they own is an infringement. In our case, where we sued them bcause they licensed the performance of others (through ASCAP and BMI) Peer claimed that the mere issuing of licenses (for money) is not infringement because o actual performance was proven and mere licensing (and fraudently posing as owner of rights) was not infringement. Under this Peer argument the mere licensing is not damaging.
On another prior case where Peer sued another publisher for infringement the Peer position was that mere licensing was infringement and demanded the maximum infringement for the sued party. Under this Peer argument, the mere licensing of their songs by the sued party was very damaging.
One would think that acutal licensing (for a fee), which is an implicit authorization to copy or perform, is more damaging to the owner than merely indexing or listing the song and that Peer’s theory was right when they claimed that licensing alone was infringement.
Perhaps someone can explain why publishers flip from one side of an argument to another whenever that is convenient and depending on wether you are an acuser or the acused of infringement?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com