UMG Recordings, Inc. v., Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
UMG Recordings, Inc. v., Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case name UMG Recordings, Inc. v., Inc.
Date decided April 28, 2000.
Citations 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
Judge sitting Jed S. Rakoff
Copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Safe Harbor

UMG Recordings, Inc. v., 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's unauthorized duplication of essentially every music CD ever made for the purposes of launching a service entitled 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 Before accessing a song from’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 doing the copying from the CDs onto their servers, and the court found this copying not a fair use.[1]

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). defended, in part, that "consumer protection" concepts supported'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, totaling over $53 million, pushed into severe financial difficulties which were averted by a merger with Vivendi Universal.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]