Website Pays $1 Million in Damages for Selling Cheap Beatles Tunes
Back in 2009, a site by the name of BlueBeat thought it was being super-clever selling digital Beatles songs without a label deal. The site claimed the files were not recordings, but "psycho-acoustic simulations". The rights holders didn't buy it, and easily got the site shut down. Now the legal battle has finally wound down and BlueBeat has agreed to pay nearly $1 million in damages.
The tracks were being sold for $0.25 each, about a quarter of what they go for on iTunes now that The Beatles have officially licensed them. BlueBeat's Hank Risan tried to explain psycho-acoustic simulations to the court saying, "Psycho-acoustic simulations are my synthetic creation of that series of sounds which best expresses the way I believe a particular melody should be heard as a live performance." Basically, the songs they were selling were just recreations that happened to sound just like the originals. Unsurprisingly, no one bought it.
The million dollar settlement might seem high, but let's not forget some file-sharers have been subject to even higher judgments. "We basically settled the case for their attorney fees," said BlueBeat’s lawyer Archie Robinson. Apparently even some fancy linguistic trickery cannot save one from the ire of the music industry.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
warptek2010
March 30, 2011 at 5:09pm
I am still scratching my head over this one... how anyone can successfully be sued for infringing on someone else's music nowadays is beyond me when with the right attorney and the right defense (which this guy obviously did not have) the case would be dismissed. Let's get this straight to all you so called 'artists' out there... your record companies and the goons in Congress over inflate your so called talent as to believe that 99.8% of you guys didn't steal from someone else to get inspiration to write your current crud.
And that's right... the Beatles certainly did it too!
![]()
TRYER
March 30, 2011 at 9:25am
"We basically settled the case for their attorney fees" Exactly right. Even if were 10 million dollars, if would go to attorney fees and music industry ceo's. Like all pirate court cases.
![]()
xchrissypoox
March 30, 2011 at 5:19am
Selling music that isn't yours $1,000,000
Jammie-Thomas case P2Ping 18 songs $1,920,000
Well done law.
![]()
Keith E. Whisman
March 29, 2011 at 9:32pm
Are Rap and Hip Hop artists going to come under attack for using parts of Beetles tunes like the Sha na na na na na, na na na hey jude, sha na na na na na, na na na, hey jude. I've been forced to hear that rap music while at work at the strip bars and ethnic clothing stores.
![]()
Silver925
March 30, 2011 at 10:04am
Nope. Rap and Hip-Hop artists who use 'samples' (A lame, 'I lack the talent to create my own melody' method. In my opinion.) do it within the guidelines. They either pay a royalty to the copyright holder, or the sample is so small (Only so many bars of music or so many words - I forget what the limit is) that it is not enough to be considered an infringement.
![]()
Keith E. Whisman
March 29, 2011 at 9:29pm
This is bad because this will probably leed to legal attacks against cell phone carriers that provide small, cheesy, midi tunes versions of actual songs. Although these low quality tunes suck, they are now open to attack because of this precident just set.
![]()
Danthrax66
March 29, 2011 at 5:20pm
Last time I checked the beatles weren't producing music anymore. So why are their songs copy protected? How about we start dealing with the law the way it is supposed to be instead of letting corporations change it?
![]()
mesiah
March 29, 2011 at 4:29pm
good analogy. I still don't know if I would have given the guy a pass (I would need to hear the music.) But it makes much more sense now.
![]()
warptek2010
March 29, 2011 at 4:10pm
I am a musician and I have written songs before using somewhat similiar techniques of what Hank Risen described. It's not bullshit. If you have ever heard music playing in the background with a lot of foreground noise and have failed to immediately identify the tune except that you're first reaction is that it sounds familiar you know what I am talking about. As you move closer to the audio field then you recognize the song you've heard a hundred times before. But before, when it was background noise, your brain interpreted the song differently, filling in the spaces where you can't quite hear. I think THAT was what he was refering to with his technobabble. This guy should've demanded a jury with at least 2 or 3 musicians on it and he would've walked away clean. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public are musical morons when they would have you believe otherwise based on what they have blasting in the car as they drive by.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















