MP3.COM, UMG CASE GOES ON
For Summary Judgment
MP3.com, meanwhile, hoped to escape a potential $167.5 million judgment by arguing that virtually all of UMG's copyright registrations were invalid.
On Thursday, lawyers for UMG and MP3.com faced off in a New York courtroom again to discuss how many of UMG's copyrights MP3.com allegedly infringed upon.
"I'm at a loss to understand what's in dispute here," said Judge Jed Rakoff of UMG's motion. "I don't see anything (valid). You are seeking as a matter of law that copyrights belong to you as works for hire. The motion as stated in the papers is denied."
Rakoff also said the validity of the certificates could be disputed during trial if the defense chooses to introduce them as evidence.
MP3.com claims that because sound recordings are not listed as a category designated as works for hire in the Copyright Act, many of UMG's certificates are fraudulent, and therefore, the online company does not need to pay damages for those works. UMG argues that while sound recordings may or may not be considered works for hire, MP3.com is nonetheless liable for copyright infringement.
VMAs BEAMING BACK
TO THE BIG APPLE Getting back to where they once belonged (4/24a)
THE COUNT: ALL THE DESERT'S A STAGE
Jon Wayne is rolling over in his grave. (4/24a)
| ||
THE NEW UMG
Gosh, we hope there are more press releases.
TIKTOK BANNED!
Unless the Senate manages to make this whole thing go away, that is.
THE NEW HUGE COUNTRY ACT
No, not that one.
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN PLAYLIST
Now 100% unlicensed!
|
A CHORUS OF PRAISE: IVORS 2024 NOMS
