翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ "O" Is for Outlaw
・ "O"-Jung.Ban.Hap.
・ "Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord
・ "Oh Yeah!" Live
・ "Our Contemporary" regional art exhibition (Leningrad, 1975)
・ "P" Is for Peril
・ "Pimpernel" Smith
・ "Polish death camp" controversy
・ "Pro knigi" ("About books")
・ "Prosopa" Greek Television Awards
・ "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen
・ "Q" Is for Quarry
・ "R" Is for Ricochet
・ "R" The King (2016 film)
・ "Rags" Ragland
・ ! (album)
・ ! (disambiguation)
・ !!
・ !!!
・ !!! (album)
・ !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!!
・ !Action Pact!
・ !Arriba! La Pachanga
・ !Hero
・ !Hero (album)
・ !Kung language
・ !Oka Tokat
・ !PAUS3
・ !T.O.O.H.!
・ !Women Art Revolution


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

UMG Recordings v. MP3.com : ウィキペディア英語版
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.

''UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.,'' 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) was a landmark case before Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the Internet. The case concerned MP3.com's unauthorized duplication of essentially every music CD ever made for the purposes of launching a service entitled My.MP3.com or "Beam-it", which allowed users to access their private music collections online from anywhere in the world.
With this decision, the court drew a distinction between time shifting and space shifting, which had previously been allowed, and "virtual" space shifting as practiced by My.MP3.com. Before accessing a song from MP3.com’s servers, a subscriber first had to “prove” that he already owned the CD by placing his copy of the commercial CD into his computer’s CD-ROM drive for several seconds or by purchasing the CD from one of defendant’s cooperating online retailers. Id. However, it was MP3.com doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.〔http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Fair_Use〕
UMG argued, in part, that the copying was not covered by fair use because entire CDs were copied (instead of excerpts) and that the use was a commercial one (even though no fee was charged, it was supported by ad revenue).
MP3.com defended, in part, that "consumer protection" concepts supported MP3.com's unauthorized use of the intellectual property of the major record labels and music publishers. In ruling, the court indicated that "stripped to its essence, defendant's 'consumer protection' argument amounts to nothing more than a bald claim that (the) defendant should be able to misappropriate (the) plaintiff's property simply because there is a consumer demand for it. This hardly appeals to the conscience of equity."
The resulting litigation and judgments against MP3.com, totaling over $53 million, pushed MP3.com into severe financial difficulties which were averted by a merger with Vivendi Universal.
==See also==

*''IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.'', a similar case

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.