A few days later, EMIthe record company that controls the Beatles musicand others filed a lawsuit against BlueBeat for copyright infringement and asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
And thats where things get really weird.
Ars Technica reports, Media Rights Technologies (MRT), the company behind BlueBeat, has a very reasonable explanation for why what its doing is legal. You see, according to MRTs co-founder and CEO Hank Risan, the songs BlueBeat is selling are in fact his original creations.
Hows that, you wonder? Apparently Risan told the RIAAs general counsel Steven Marks that he authored the songs using psycho-acoustic simulation so they are new recordings and not subject to copyright restrictions. Well, that explains everything.
In its response in opposition to the TRO, BlueBeats 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 conatained in their copyrighted recordings.
Uh huh.
Even if BlueBeat could somehow convince a judge that its completely legitand that isnt going to happen, mind youtheres still the fact that the company doesnt actually tell you that youre not buying the originals. The Abbey Road album page, for example, lists the artist, album title, track titles, record label, and release dateyou would reasonably assume thats what youre buying. So at the very least, BlueBeat is misleading users into believing they are buying something thats not actually for sale.
Oh yeah, and the Websites FAQs say, our mp3s are fully-licensed audio-visual works and BlueBeat.com pays all applicable royalties, yet at the bottom of every page it reads, All audio-visual works copyright BlueBeat.
So which is it? BlueBeat pays royalties or it owns everything it sells? Seems like if its own Website is so schizophrenic, theres not much chance of convincing anyone else that it deserves to survive.
[Update: Ars Technica has reported that the judge has now issued the temporary restraining order because defendants actions can cause irreparable damage to the perceived value of Plaintiffs music and to Plaintiffs digital distribution strategies and relationships.]