Company Sued For Selling Beatles MP3s Says They're Original Works, So It's Okay
Since the Beatles are notorious for refusing to release their music online, the mere fact that BlueBeat.com was selling them was kind of strange, which probably explains why EMI just sued them for copyright infringement. But BlueBeat has come up with a perfectly reasonable explanation. The songs aren't really Beatles songs, you see, but "psycho-acoustic simulations" and therefore original works.
According to Macworld,
BlueBeat's lawyers claim that the Website is "entirely lawful and does not constitute piracy" and that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed. Also, the plaintiffs are well aware that the defendants "developed a series of entirely new and original sounds that it allows the general public to purchase" and that "copyright protection does not extend to the independant fixation of sounds other than those contained in their copyrighted recordings."
Macworld points out that even if this were a sane argument that was remotely believable, BlueBeat sells their so-called knockoff Beatles tracks as real Beatles tracks, complete with "album title, track titles, record label, and release date." I just hope BlueBeat presents some sort of online demo of what "psycho-acoustic simulation" entails, so I can duplicate it at home and create my own music store.
Update, Friday Nov 6th: The judge has ordered Bluebeat to stop selling the Beatles tracks at once. (Thanks to sakanagai!)
"BlueBeat says Beatles songs are its own creations" [Macworld]
Post a comment
Comments:
It is clearly not a Beatles song, because when you play it backward, it says "Bob is dead," not Paul.
Companies, this is the correct reason to sue someone for infringement.
I'm surprised they didn't just claim they were selling really big numbers and it's not their fault if software made by other people create sounds that were copyrighted by the Beatles.
I knew something was fishy when they tried to sell me MP3's out of the back of a van.
We all live in a yellow boat. A yellow boat. A yellow boat.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: Actually, they're suing them because the "Beat" in their name too closely resembles "Beatles."
Psycho-acoustic modeling is used in audio compression, so basically all they are claiming is that they are using their own model in compressing the files. Now, this modeling is usually used to eliminate sounds outside of human perception, but their model may actually eliminate sounds within the human hearing range, and thus modify the song. In this regard, I understand the logic behind their defense, even though I don't think their actions are defensible.
One thing's for sure: the balls on these guys are so huge I am not sure they can walk.
Has no one listened to them? They certainly sound pretty close to me. (use the dj crates link at top for registration free listening)
@diasdiem: If the original beatles song was used in the creation of it, then yes, that's derivative. About the only way they could get away with it is if they had a random number generator dumping to a file, and then having someone listen to it and see if it sounds like the Beatles song.
Someone direct me to a site where I can buy "psycho-acoustic simulations" of Yoko Ono's music.
I heard about this yesterday and checked out BlueBeat's site. At the bottom, in the fine print, they say:
"BlueBeat transmits simulated live musical performances for free at 160 and 320 kb/s."
I wonder if that's the "psycho-acoustic simulation" they're referring to?
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: They are most certainly original works, updated to modern times. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to "Hey Mr. UPS Guy," "A Taste of High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup," "Back in the Russian Federation," "Leave My LOLCat Alone," and "Kindle eBook Writer"
Every single act of playing a recording is a psycho-acoustic simulation of the original recording.
@Several: Don't forget such classics as "Assist!," "Nickel Street," "A Few Days Ago," "Thirty-Two Days A Month," "With Some Assistance from my Acquaintances," "She's Infatuated with You," and "Hi, Bye"
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: my favorites are "when i'm LXIV", "b/c", & their collaborative work w/ ned flanders: "ob-la-diddly-di, ob-la-diddly-da".
@thriceberg: That's basically a fancy way of saying they're streaming an MP3, or some other compressed format.
@delphi_ote: Yes, and playing even a simple 128kbps MP3 over speakers is a "simulated live musical performance".
Separate creation/not actually copying the original is a valid defense to copyright. However, in this case it is pretty clear that the defendant copied the works so the defense will likely fail.
So if I use really technical words to explain what I do, I can avoid infringement and copyright lawsuits. Not a good defense.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: The good news is that now BlueBeat is making psycho-acoustic simulations of the Beatles' works available, so the Arrested Development movie will be able to afford to use a psycho-acoustic simulation of Yellow Submarine. I was kind of fond of the ersatz Yellow Boat song, though.
I would have argued public domain through fourier series :P
What, no love for Happiness is a Warm Kitten?
@Nintenboy01: Taking into account manufacturing quirks, equalization differences, temperature fluctuations, and quantum effects, every time you play the song is a unique simulated musical performance!
umm didnt MJ own the beatles catalog?
@rockergal: Jackson owned half of the publishing, which is another thing entirely. EMI own the song performances on the records.
@SybilDisobedience: The Beetles are built by Ikea? Of course you have to assemble (or ensemble, as the case may be) the group yourself.
@diasdiem: Thus prompting a name change to "Blue Monster" and avoiding all further frivolous lawsuits.
@osiris73: Meh, after the "Ballad of Yohn and Joko" they really started to splinter up. You can hear it all over the Pale album.
@jimmypopjr: "Look at the monkey! LOOK AT THE SILLY MONKEY!!!"
You might want to note that BlueBeat.com and MRT (parent) are now subject to a temporary restraining order.
The judge overseeing the case isn't liking the psycho-acoustic argument proposed by the defendants, either, so I don't imagine EMI having a difficult time putting an end to this.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: My friends and I cohabit a mid-spectrum double-hulled submersible vessel of war.
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, though.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: I am not sure whether I like these better than The Rutles. What I do know is that I like to listen to these psycho-acoustic simulations while reading David Coperfield, with one P. It is written by Edmund Wells.
@Nintenboy01: I'm pretty sure, once you cut through the bullshit, that it's the core of their defense - an MP3 isn't an actual performance or recording of the song, it's just a certain number of magnetic bits or electrons that can be made to SIMULATE a song.
It's still ten different flavours of bullshit, though.
@Smashville_now with Monster Energy: I've always considered "Six Shooter" to be the album where they really came into their own, but my favorite song will always be "Lady Mary, Mother of Jesus", which wasn't released on any studio album but was compiled later with other singles onto the "Hey Julian" album.
If there was ever a time to actually use the Chewbacca defense in court, this would be it.