Universal Music Sues MySpace.com

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MYSPACE_UNIVERSAL?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-18-06-51-03 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MYSPACE_UNIVERSAL?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-18-06-51-03)

Universal Music Sues MySpace.com
By ALEX VEIGA
AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Universal Music Group on Friday sued MySpace.com, claiming the online social-networking hub illegally encourages its users to share music and music videos on the site without permission.

The recording company is seeking unspecified damages, including up to $150,000 for each unauthorized music video or song posted on the Web site.

The lawsuit is the latest legal salvo in a wider conflict between established media against Internet companies whose technology is challenging the traditional ways music, video and other content are distributed and consumed.

In its complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, Universal Music contends MySpace, a unit of News Corp., attempts to shield itself from liability by requiring users agree to grant the Web site a license to publish the content they upload to the site.

--------------------------------------------------

Okay, I have a question about this -- if someone uses movie-maker and some other movie-making software to make little videos to go along with their favorite songs, and they upload them to a private site and share them with friends, is that considered copyright infringment? They aren't using the artists videos, they are making their own. I've seen several of these kind on YouTube.
<!-- BEGIN MEDIA BOX NUMBER 2 -->

[Wyatt_Junker]

The difference between classically defined 'sharing' (when I give my friend a DVD to borrow) and streaming it online is that the latter(streaming) changes the entire former distribution model. And that's the difference.

Physical product borrowing is one thing. Its local. Digital file sharing is another phenomena entirely. The first is a quaint, contained social act. The second destroys royalty arrangments and completely eliminates retail at every level and the artist gets zip.

In this argument, its ALL about the distribution.

Its pretty simple really. However, the media won't say the obvious nor the rest of the geek-set digerati who re-invent the argument into some kind of false-romanticism of Goliaths v. Davids aka 'down with the man' bullshit rhetorical forays.

[Charity]

What about those sites where you can watch some old tv shows and movies?

[Wolfcounsel]

You're violating the profit rights of those artists even when you record their music from the TV or radio! Stop it this instant!:hissyfit: