Welcome to p2pnet.net - The original daily p2p and digital news site. Always First!
REGISTER | LOGIN
Cool Stuff
MPAA News
Games / Consoles
News
Music
Movies
Reviews
Open Source
Mobiles
Advertising
Products
P2P
Off Topic
Freedom
Politics
Interviews
Security
DRM
Links
Kids and Kartels
Scroogle Search: 
Search
 
Web p2pnet   
Search: 
Search
Torrent Site Tracker
    Sponsored by
Frostwire
 
p2pnet
 


mp3rocket
 
Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

Napster sued: copyright case

p2p news / p2pnet: Napster, the pale and wan corporate version of the p2p application that started it all, is again being sued – and again, copyright violation is the charge.

"MCS Music America, a Nashville-based company that administers copyrights for about 45,000 songs, claims Napster has put hundreds of songs controlled by MCS and its publisher clients on Napster.com without obtaining the proper licenses for paying royalties," says Nashville’s The City Paper.

MCS Music America operates as Pollyday Publishing, Su-Ma Publishing Co. and C Minor Music and filed the suit on behalf of 27 publishing companies, many of them based in Tennessee, says the story.

Napster sent MCS a form seeking a licensing agreement, but neither party signed it, the suit states. "After getting the inquiry, a MCS employee subscribed to Napster and found the songs were being used without permission," says The City Paper, adding:

"The suit is seeking $150,000 in damages per violation on two counts involving both the downloaded song and the streaming version."

Also See:
The City PaperLocal group takes Napster back to court, December 22, 2005

HOME

2 Responses to “Napster sued: copyright case”

  1. Reader's Write Says:

    This is very strange, indeed!

    In this case, Napster is sued for infringing the copyright owners rights by placing songs on their for download catalog without a proper authorization at a $150,000 per song.

    It very strange because in my case a federal judge (in an American court) determined that a music publisher having hundreds of songs on their catalog, licensing all the songs for money, illegally registering the songs in the copyright officee, all without the owner’s authorization, and authorizing the production of over five million records, all during a period of over six years, is not copyright infringement.

    We got nothing per song.

    See case datails here:
    http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/peer-acemla.htm

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas

  2. Reader's Write Says:

    You need to move on, really… You gave it a shot and it didn’t pan out, get a new hobby or something.

Leave a Reply

ONLY items referencing the post at hand, please. No links to personal sites, no personal attacks, trolling, freebie advertising, or off-topic posts. Thanks. And Cheers!

    Sponsored by
tek savvy