That's interesting, although one of the comments in this thread mentioned Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes [1], a similar case tried in the same court 10 years later.
MP3Tunes 'won' in principle but they were liable for ignoring DMCA takedown notices and seeding the service with unauthorized copies of music.
> First, it established DMCA safe harbor protection for online locker services, potentially granting them "broad immunity from copyright liability". Second, it endorsed data deduplication, which allows cloud music services to more efficiently allocate storage and reduce the amount of space needed per user.
I would be curious to know why the rulings were different. If anything it seems like MP3.com provided stronger guarantees that their users legally owned the songs by requiring them to insert a CD.
MP3Tunes 'won' in principle but they were liable for ignoring DMCA takedown notices and seeding the service with unauthorized copies of music.
> First, it established DMCA safe harbor protection for online locker services, potentially granting them "broad immunity from copyright liability". Second, it endorsed data deduplication, which allows cloud music services to more efficiently allocate storage and reduce the amount of space needed per user.
I would be curious to know why the rulings were different. If anything it seems like MP3.com provided stronger guarantees that their users legally owned the songs by requiring them to insert a CD.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tu...