RIAA sues vanishing Spanish music site
Posted by configure on 11 July 2003 - 02:20 · 11 comments & 2203 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configure
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
configureContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by empty on 11 Jul 2003 - 02:26
- Good lord, why cant the RIAA just curl up and die, they think they are making a differance but in actual fact they are just being fools.
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by helloalexb on 11 Jul 2003 - 02:58
- I have to say I agree w/ empty, doesnt the RIAA relize that no matter what they tryto do they are never going to win, some one is going to make a new program, network or any kinda of p2p type then thats going to get shut down, then something else is going to come out, you know why wont the RIAA just make some kind of file swappng program of there own make it were you have to pay give the ppl back something to make them want to use ther network. But I guess the RIAA is to stupid to do anything like that. Ohh well
-
#2.1 Posted by YaddaMe on 11 Jul 2003 - 03:58
- Did you guys even read the article? Or did you just see "RIAA" and the word "sues" and jump to conclusions?
While the RIAA are clearly bad guys in the grand scheme of things, you and empty do realize this is completely irrelavant to the reason we all hate the RIAA, and they are actually "in the right" on this particular case?
Last edited by 10547 on 11 Jul 2003 - 06:30 -
#2.2 Posted by helloalexb on 22 Jul 2003 - 18:51
- spawn of saten
-
#3 Posted by Skyfrog on 11 Jul 2003 - 03:39
- I wish I was a billionaire so I could buy up tons of CDs and then sell them to people for five cents each. It would really tick off the RIAA and since it would be legal there is nothing they could do about it.
Then again if I bought up all those CDs my money would be going to the record companies anyway. Looks like my plan is flawed; I hope to have it worked out before I make my first billion though.
-
#4 Posted by kyro on 11 Jul 2003 - 04:55
- RIAA needs a good A**cream whacking from a big arab gang.
-
#5 Posted by nookadum on 11 Jul 2003 - 05:14
- Uh, you guys, the RIAA is right in this case. Puretunes was freely distributing MAJOR LABEL music for free, and that's truly illegal. YaddaMe is right, this is completely irrelevant to the other crap RIAA has been doing.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by nathanintu on 11 Jul 2003 - 05:44
- Now if the RIAA are based in the u.s, how can they sue a company overseas?
-
#6.1 Posted by YaddaMe on 11 Jul 2003 - 06:26
- "Despite its unclear ownership, the lawsuit was filed in U.S. federal court because the service operated as a business in the United States."
Also (and Im the farthest thing from a legal expert)... just b/c the parties are in different countries makes no difference in the ability to sue... although getting them into court, etc is the hard thing. If it is indeed a Spanish-based company, and there is no shared jurisdiction for this, then the RIAA heads into court, Puretunes no-shows, RIAA wins by default and then the Puretunes company will never be allowed to operate in the U.S. until they 'pay-up' on the penalty... again, in far from a legal expert, so maybe someone else can clear that up if im spouting inaccuracies.
Last edited by 10547 on 11 Jul 2003 - 06:36
-
#7 Posted by YaddaMe on 11 Jul 2003 - 06:24
- (moved to the reply above)
-
#8 Posted by Garrett Socling on 11 Jul 2003 - 08:32
QUOTE it's even worse that the RIAA tried to perpetrate a fraud on the public by claiming that they were a legitimate business."
Puretunes emerged in May, claiming that it had won rights from several Spanish licensing agencies that gave it the ability to distribute major label music legally online. Label representatives said the site was operating illegally because Puretunes had not acquired the permission of labels, artists or song publishers.
However, the service went offline last month. The RIAA suit comes after several weeks of complaints from angry Puretunes customers.
"Contrary to everything that Puretunes told the public--both on its Web site and in news reports--they never obtained nor sought licenses for the music that they were selling to the public," an RIAA representative said in a statement. "It's bad enough that Puretunes was selling music illegally--it's even worse that they tried to perpetrate a fraud on the public by claiming that they were a legitimate business."
Representatives for Puretunes could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
Puretunes took after an earlier Spanish company, Weblisten.com, which allowed subscribers to download unlimited amounts of music over a specified time frame. WebListen.com, which also launched without securing rights directly from labels, has been sued multiple times.
Puretunes plan was to give visitors all-you-can-eat access to a vast music library for time periods such as one night, one weekend or one week. On its Web site, the company advertised access to music from artists such as Madonna and Metallica, which are difficult to find on legal services such as Pressplay, Listen.com's Rhapsody, or Apple Computer's iTunes.
Puretunes struck an initial deal for distribution and advertising with peer-to-peer service Grokster, giving it a higher profile in the United States than rival WebListen.
Just a few weeks after launching, the service disappeared without explanation, however. Subscribers--some of whom paid for a full year in advance--said they have repeatedly e-mailed the company, but have gotten no response or refunds.
"It sounded too good to be true, which I guess it was," said Houston-area computer user Nephi Ferguson, who subsequently started a Yahoo e-mail list for people to discuss the company's apparent demise. "There has been no word from anyone. It's been very mysterious as to why they disappeared."
The RIAA suit was filed July 3 in a federal court in Washington. The trade group is seeking damages for copyright infringements made during Puretunes' short window of operation.