Lawsuit finds that EMI distributed music illegally on Rapidshare

By on December 6, 2010, 2:58 PM
EMI and MP3tunes are currently in a three year legal battle over illegal distribution of copyright music. Michael Robertson, the owner of MP3tunes, was able to get hold of secret EMI e-mails, in which representatives of the group admitted to having used Rapidshare to distribute copyrighted material as a form of viral marketing, according to the German website Heise Online.

In court, EMI is accusing MP3tunes of allowing illegal music downloads. The stance now appears to be highly hypocritical. The company distributed its music via file sharing websites and then sued users for downloading their music without paying. It has come to light that EMI employs a team of advertising people, artists, and agents who have placed together so many free music downloads on the Internet that EMI itself has trouble distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized links. It's thus no surprise that Robertson wants the 41-page lawsuit dismissed. The case could be closed as soon as January 2011.

EMI Group (Electric & Musical Industries) is a British music company and the fourth-largest record label in the recording industry. The group is thus one of the big four record companies and a member of the RIAA. It goes without saying that this news is highly embarrassing for the label and could have devastating effects in court.





User Comments: 9

Got something to say? Post a comment
stensland said:

I think everyone kind of assumed that record labels were doing this, but now there is proof

yRaz yRaz said:

you know...wtf...this kind of thing makes me want to fight people...and I'm not a fighter.

When are they going to give it up. Downloading music is not stealing because there isn't anything to steal. There isn't anything lost and most people, like me, wouldn't even listen to music if it wasn't available for free on the internet or youtube. (excuse me, I pay for netflix)

If people truly believe that music and movies are art, then why shouldn't they be available for free? As an artist, I would love for people to see my work. If I wrote a song and 10,000 people downloaded it, I would be honored. It isn't about the artists anymore...

There is only one thing I really have to say:

asdgqewrgasdfaqsw34tqwrg!

KG363 KG363 said:

Record labels have been doing this for years. Statistically, it works. They end up making more money. That's why I hate the RIAA

Guest said:

@yRaz Two wrongs don't make a right.

EMI should be penalized for doing wrong. Just because something is considered art does not make it free. Based on your logic, if I went into your home and copied all data from your computer, all papers, etc. but you still had the originals, I wouldn't be stealing. Where do you live?

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Is this really the type of people TomSEA has been fighting for?

Oh the irony...

Guest said:

you would have to be some kind of massive knobber not to understand that EMI ( however much you think they are wankers ) can do what they like with files of music if they have paid for them to be created , and have funded the musicians to help them pursue their art

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

you would have to be some kind of massive knobber not to understand that EMI ( however much you think they are wankers ) can do what they like with files of music if they have paid for them to be created , and have funded the musicians to help them pursue their art

That's not the problem. The problem is that they are suing people for doing things that they pay other people to do. That's hypocrisy at its best. It's like a corrupt cop suing a criminal.

Guest said:

Just to put my 2 cents in. I pay for most of my music. Usually through iTunes (I know, I know) as it is the easiest medium available to me.

However, I much prefer what Radiohead and NIN (and probably others I'm unaware of) did which is taking out the middle man of the record company and releasing their music on _their_ website. When you pay for it that way it feels like your money is actually going to the band.

Paying for music via iTunes mean that money goes to Apple as well as the record company and then finally to the artist. Now this money does go to use in terms of marketing and reputation respectively. But then this means that those companies can promote other bands with the money they got off the first band!

I will admit that I illegally download movies and TV shows, but there are a couple of reasons for this. a) I'm not sure I'll like it or not (which I'll be able to tell by the 3rd or 4th epp) and b) All the good shows don't come to Aus until ages later.

I offset this by actually paying to see the movie in a cinema when it comes out, and then buying the DVD.

The only problem with my system of self satisfaction and karmic alignment, is that I'm still using a service which other people use who don't see it the same way as I do. =/

Guest said:

If more record labels are caught illegally distributing music, what does this mean for the RIAA's anti-piracy stance?

We'll definitely be discussing this during the music business chat @MBizchat on Monday!

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.