Tuesday, February 24, 2009

EMI sues Seeqpod and Favtape and management, and threatens their investors, for copyright infringement in Capitol Records v. Seeqpod

EMI and its affiliates have commenced a new copyright infringement case in New York against Seeqpod and Favtape and against their management investors. They also threatened to add additional investors as defendants.

The name of the case is Capitol Records v. Seeqpod

Seeqpod was sued by Warner Bros. Records in January, in Los Angeles.

Complaint

Thanks to michaelrobertson.com for bringing it to my attention.

[Ed. note. This trend towards threatening investors is quite disturbing, as it seems a calculated attempt to discourage investment in emerging technologies, something our country needs to encourage, rather than discourage. I hope my readers will take this up with their Representatives and Senators. -R.B.]

Addendum 2/27/09:
[Ed. note. I notice that the plaintiffs' attorneys are not the usual suspects, Jenner & Block. They are a mid-sized New York firm, Pryor and Cashman. I don't know if this means anything but it bears watching. Maybe the record companies have finally realized that Jenner & Block's "architecture" for this litigation campaign has been a flawed "blueprint". -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

Billboard





Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

This man feels that these Big Media Plaintiffs ought to actually "win" one of these cases before filing additional ones in a blatant attempt to cow the Defendants.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Alter_Fritz said...

now slowly but for sure it starts to get laughable with those rabit EMI guys and their lawyers!
They seem to be really on a crusade to sue everyone and his last ear!
Before we know it, they might file charges against the "almighty creator of mankind" for contributory copyright infringement for that it gave mankind the ability to hear music in the first place .

Can't your politicians pass a law that give a corporation a certain pool of numbers of suits they are allowed to file in their corporate history?

Maybe then EMI would choose wiser and would only file charges when they are justified and reasonable.

As it looks in the moment it seems the new owner of EMI is either a guy that suffers from ICD10 F22.8 that they sue everybody and their last ear with his explicit permission and encouragement.
OR
it is he is such an incompetent leader/owner of this corporation that the lawyers that has contracts with EMI are simply running loose on their own totally uncontrolled/unchecked.

Both is in the end so extremely bad for EMI, I'm wondering if the shareholders of terra firma the new owner of EMI are sane themself after all.

They can't seriously believe to rewind the clock of time so much.

Even the most conservative politicians can't be so extreme "progress"-phobic that it would fit the agenda that EMI seems to have!

--
A_F

Jonathan said...

They use a couple of quotes from bloggers as an attempt at "evidence" of how the system works in their complaint? Really... that's a bit of a reach.

Alter_Fritz said...

oh, one last comment before continuing to ignore EMI and their "product":
While I appreciate that they ceased to try to establish as a matter of factual allegations in their papers that they are "well respected", In my opinion paragraph 45 can safely be described as revisionistic nonsense and pure self delusion.
Please evil4 lawyers stop such nonsense and stick with the facts in your papers. It was the trade organisation of your clients that tried to sue the mp3 player into nonexistence in the first place for example!

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Looks like Warner's sued Seeqpod, too, in L.A. But only Seeqpod, not any individuals. Defendants might be wise to seek consolidation of the two cases in L.A.

Hey, we should start a pool. My money's on a cut-and-run dismissal without prejudice against the individual defendants -- after putting them through the time and expense of pleadings, discovery, and motion practice, of course.

The crystal ball's hazier on the suits against SeeqPod itself. I think Seeqpod will prevail on appeal to the search engine fair use friendly Ninth Circuit, but it could go either way in district court, and it could go either way in the Second Circuit. Don't mean to knock your home turf, Mr. Beckerman, but the Second Circuit has some strange ideas about Internet links and the DMCA.

My sympathies for the gentlemen being sued. I hope this doesn't deter them from continuing to do good things for culture and technology.