Ministry Of Sound Ditches File Sharing Lawsuits After It Finds Out That BT Actually Protects User Privacy
from the how-dare-they! dept
Music label Ministry of Sound, who had recently joined the self-destructive mass “pay up or we’ll sue you for infringement” shakedown business, has apparently abandoned those plans. Why? Because BT actually followed through with protecting its users’ privacy in accordance with data retention rules, and destroyed its log files after 90 days. Ministry of Sound is apparently “very disappointed” that BT actually protects the privacy of its customers. Some of this, of course, was in response to the revelation that ACS:Law (who is not representing Ministry of Sound) was not properly protecting user info. The case gets even stranger, since apparently Ministry of Sound doesn’t even hold the copyright to the music tracks it’s complaining about, but merely to the track listings on the album. Of course, this move seems to have only made Ministry of Sound and its lawyers, Gallant MacMillan, more determined to file future self-destructive lawsuits.
Filed Under: copyright, privacy, uk
Companies: ministry of sound
Comments on “Ministry Of Sound Ditches File Sharing Lawsuits After It Finds Out That BT Actually Protects User Privacy”
Don't you wish we could fast-forward 20 years...
Until we’re past all this BS, the music industry (as we know it now) is dead, and everyone is happily enjoying their entertainment and that the entertainers are getting paid via REALISTIC business models?
Re: Don't you wish we could fast-forward 20 years...
20 Years… really? I give them less than 10.
Re: Re: Don't you wish we could fast-forward 20 years...
I said that 10 years ago. Progress 0, Regress 1.
id rather watch em burn at this point, im just worried about all the incredibly stupid laws we will be left with cause of their lobbyists
Presumably that means.....?
So by that rationale once you have the music in your media player, if you re-number the tracks to a different order and delete or don’t download the ones you didn’t like anyway you can tell them to go urinate up a hawser? I’d like to see that work in practice.
Of course the actual creator would still have grounds….
Me, I’m off to copyright my shopping list then will sue Ocado when their online “your favorites” shopping basket puts the things I buy in the same order as me. 🙂
Pathetic
This is just pathetic, how in the hell can the music industry/government claim that it’s not about the money, it’s about protecting the rights holders, then turn around and make a statement like the one below.
” it makes no economic sense to continue with this application.”
Despite the setback, the firm said that it was now “more determined than ever to go after internet users who illegally upload our copyrighted material”.
…..should read…..
..more determined than ever (as long as we can make a pile of money doing it) to go after the internet users who illegally upload our copyrighted material….
Who or what the hell is BT? What a lousy article. Using an acronym instead of the real words. Who knows but you what a BT is?
Re: Re:
BT: what used to be British Telecom once upon a time, but now trades as BT (possibly because of the american penchant for automatically disliking anything with another country name in the title) and operates internationally including in the US. So in this case the acronym IS the trading name and entirely accurate to use.
Re: Re:
“A BT” is a company that’s been trading as BT since 1991, the year when it changed its full trading name from British Telecom to BT. What other name would you suggest should be used in their article, other than the company’s full trading name?
Ministry of Sound
1. I had to google “ministry of sound” to even know what you were talking about – and while I found out, I wonder now why I bothered.
2. At the beginning it is clear they will abandon lawsuits, at the end it is equally clear they will increase them. I suppose this is logical in the music business???
3. Why is so much space wasted on such garbage?
At least they've got the right name
Ministry of Sound?
Is that like the following from George Orwell’s 1984:
So while not an {appendage | tool | member | organ} of the government, the Ministry of Sound sues people over track listings of titles on albums? Sounds about right to me. Welcome to 1984.
I've always liked BT as a DJ...
…but the fact that he respects user privacy, too? Man, that’s awesome. Ministry of Sound shouldn’t be pissing on him for this.
Track listings are not protectable expression.
Track listings are not protectable expression, any more than recipes or phone book listings are. Album art, lyrics, and other album-leaflet content with some element of original expression will be copyrightable, but a simple listing of the tracks on an album and their sequence on that album would seem to be a dry listing of factual data.
music industry is dead
I really believe that music industry is trying their best to survive. But people are on still supporting what the free music that they get.
music industry is dead
I really believe that music industry is trying their best to survive. But people are on still supporting what the free music that they get.