ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> First Amendment Center

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Constitutional Law

: First Amendment Center

Ruling: Music website violated Beatles copyrights

By By The Associated Press

ADVERTISEMENTS

LOS ANGELES ? A website that sold songs by the Beatles for 25 cents ? more than a year before legal digital copies were available ? is liable for copyright infringement, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker ruled Dec. 8 that BlueBeat.com violated the copyrights and presented unfair competition to music company EMI Group and others. The site streamed and sold music by the Fab Four and other top-name acts, including Coldplay and Lily Allen, for several days before music companies sued to shut it down in November 2009.

The ruling did not address how much BlueBeat may be liable for in damages, although EMI's attorneys have noted that it began streaming and selling Beatles music shortly after the release of a re-mastered box set of all the group's albums last year.

In court filings, the site acknowledged it had distributed more than 67,000 Beatles songs before another federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily shut down the site.

With great fanfare, Beatles music became available on Apple's iTunes on Nov. 16, and in the first week more than 2 million of their songs and 450,000 albums were purchased. The popular music service sells the group's songs for $1.29 apiece.

Tucker rejected arguments by BlueBeat and its owner, Hank Risan, that he had pioneered a method he calls "psycho-acoustic simulation" that resulted in unique versions of copyrighted music. The judge noted that Risan admitted the recordings available on his site were based on copies of CDs that he had purchased.

"Risan's obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language appears to be a long-winded way of describing 'sampling,' i.e. copying, and fails to provide any concrete evidence of independent creation," Tucker wrote in her ruling.

Phone and e-mail messages for BlueBeat's attorney, Archie Robinson, were not returned.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on December 09, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0181 secs (new cache)