Lycos Sues TiVo, Netflix and Blockbuster Over

U.S. Patent 6,775,664*
U.S. Patent 6,308,175*
One-time rival of Yahoo! and Google, Lycos claims that TiVo, Netflix and Blockbuster infringe its two patents over the way they provide movie and television show recommendations to customers.

Dale's Comment:  *I am not certain of the patents listed above. These were cited by Davis Freeberg as the most likely patents involved.. I'll update if/when I get more information. I wonder why wasn't named here. The methods used by these companies to recommend content is pretty straight forward and, to me, obvious. 

Sources: DallasNews (Bloomberg) | Mercury News | SeekingAlpha | Davis Freeberg

French Court Rules Sony’s Portable Music Player & Download Service Breach Linked Sales Laws

A French court ruled that Sony's tying sales of music to a single type of portable music player, breached French law forbidding such "linked sales".  The Court also ruled that Sony mislead its customers by not making it clear on its portable music player packaging that it could only play music downloaded from Sony's own Connect music store

Importantly, the court did not go so far as to forbid the use of DRM, however.  

Sony was ordered to: (i) pay a fine of 10,000 euros ($13,000); (ii) henceforth state on its music-player packaging that the product only play songs downloaded from Sony's own Connect music store; and (iii) publish the information on its French website homepage.

Sources: The Australian | AgroVox | Euro2Day | Daily India | Washington Times | MSNBC

Related Posts:

Apple iTunes DRM-Antitrust Case to Continue (Tucker v. Apple)

From the Thomas Slattery case back in January of 2005 till now there have been several lawsuits brought against Apple alleging Apple's use of proprietary DRM schemes limiting music purchased from iTunes to playing back only on portable devices manufactured by Apple as anti-competitive.

A U.S. District court recently denied Apple's motion to dismiss the Tucker v. Apple case (filed in July 2006) similarly alleging, among other things, that:

Apple has engaged in tying and monopolizing behavior, placing unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice and restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets.

In denying Apple's request, U.S. District Court James concluded,  

"the existence of valid business reasons in antitrust cases is generally a question of fact not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

Melanie Tucker is seeking class status, wants Apple to be enjoined from tieing music bought on iTunes to iPods as the only possible portable playback device for such music plus unspecified damages for all persons that purchased music from iTunes since April of 2004. 

Sources: Engadget | WebProNews | Ecommerce Times | GameShout | Home Media Magazine | Active Home | Computer World | Macworld | ITNews | P2PNet | ZDNet Blogs  Yahoo! News (AP)

Related Posts:

Sony Settles Rootkit Lawsuit with 40+ U.S. States for $5.75M (and Climbing)

This is an evolving story. Over the last couple weeks news reports have covered the growing number of U.S. states settling with Sony over the Rootkit debacle (see stories linked below). The number of states and the dollar value appears to be growing, but it seems clear that Sony is quickly putting this behind them.

Under the settlement, SONY BMG must provide refunds up to $175 to all consumers who experienced harm to their computers when they sought to remove the DRM software.  Refund claims may be submitted to SONY BMG through this claims page.

Some reports indicated that Sony is in final settlement discussions with the FTC on this matter as well. 

Sources: PCWorld | CSO (IDG) | DRM Watch | techworld | Computer World| ZDNet | CNet | InfoWorld | Massachusetts Attorney General Press Release | Sony's Settlement Page

 Related Posts:

RIAA Sues AllofMP3 – Seeks Domain Transfer and $1.65 Trillion in Damages!

Following a similar suit by the BPI in July,'s Moscow-based parent Mediaservices, Inc. has been sued by the RIAA for massive copyright infringement in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to the New York Post:

The RIAA is seeking $150,000 for each instance of copyright infringement. That equates to an astounding $1.65 trillion for the five-month period in question.

Wow! I suspect they'll have a little trouble collecting this damage award if successful! Surprised

Interestingly, along with the damages award, the suit seeks court ordered control of's domains. Given the global nature of the Internet, it will be interesting to see if a court would grant such a prayer for relief. Mountainview California-based  Verisign operates the domain name registry for the .com domain space. has long claimed that they are in full compliance with Russian law and pay licensing fees on all music sales to Russia's equivalent of the RIAA, the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems (ROMS). The RIAA's response is that ROMS has no authority to issue licenses to AllofMP3 and that would require licenses from record companies to legally sell downloadable music – which it does not have.

Dale's Comment: Aside from the astronomical damages request, what intrigues me is the global implications of an order to transfer the domain. There has been much controversy at the United Nations over who should control the Internet and the Internet domain space. The U.S. has fiercely guarded its ultimate ability to control it. If such an order was made by a U.S. court at the behest of the U.S. music industry, and if Verisign complies, this might spark protests from nations around the globe.

Note: I have not yet found the claim online. When I do, I'll post it here. Most of the stories online are all repeats of the original AP story so there are not many details available at this point.

Sources: ars technica | techdirt | Associated Press| | ABC News | PC Pro | Pocket-Link | New York Post | BBC | Playfuls | Red Herring |

Related Posts:

Oregon District Judge – ‘Making Available’ – Sufficient Grounds For Copyright Infringement

  Decision – Motion to Dismiss Denied (October 25, 2006)
In a decision that may have far-reaching consequences an Oregon District Judge Ann Aiken has held, for the purposes of denying a motion to dismiss, that merely having a 'shared files folder' on one's computer, and thereby 'making files available for distribution', with nothing else, constitute the necessary elements of a copyright infringement action.

In response to this decision Recording Industry v. The People aptly says:

This is the first instance of which we are aware in which a judge has explicitly held that the RIAA's allegation of "making files available for distribution" is sufficient in and of itself to state a claim for relief under the Copyright Act. The decision contains no discussion of the Copyright Act, applicable case law, legal scholarship, or anything else that might give a clue as to how the judge came to agree with the RIAA. We will investigate further to see if the issue was briefed and, if so, how.

Dale's Comment: Wow! Whether or not making files available for distribution is sufficient to constitute copyright infringement (without proof that the file was actually copied by anyone) is the subject of wide-ranging debate. For this judge to make such a sweeping conclusion without supporting it in any way is surprising.  Fortunately for Barker the RIAA dismissed this case. Shrewdly for the RIAA, such dismissal may negate Barker's appeal on the merits while yielding a precedent they can point to in future cases. I suspect that whether this decision is appealable or not, the 'decision' will be hotly contested in future cases.

Sources: Recording Industry v. The People | Afterdawn | *ars technica 

Related Posts:

Shawn Hogan’s Motion to Dismiss RIAA Claim Denied

Motion to Dismiss Denied (December 11, 2006)
Text of Motion to Dismiss (November 2, 2006)
Last August I wrote about millionaire Shawn Hogan's decision to fight back against the MPAA's allegation that he illegally downloaded "Meet the Fockers". Last November I wrote about his motion to dismiss based on faulty copyright registrations

District Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan agreed that Hogan was factually correct but has nevertheless denied the motion to dismiss stating:

Courts take a liberal approach to errors in copyright registrations. Serious errors—even in the claimant’s name—do not invalidate copyright registrations in the absence of fraud before the Copyright Office or prejudice to the alleged infringer … Otherwise, the infringer would get a “free pass” to infringe, essentially because of a technicality.


Hogan has not even suggested that ither Universal entity defrauded the Copyright Office, nor has he shown prejudice dueto the error. Instead, he seeks to avoid addressing the merits of the copyright infringement claim by pointing out an error in the registration. Fortunately (for authors,claimants, and the general public), the Copyright Act does not require such rigid aherence to formalities.  

Sources: Text of Motion to Dismiss | Recording Industry v. The People |

Related Posts:


RIAA P2P Defendant Brings Class Action Suit Against Kazaa Creator Sharman Networks

  Text of Amended Complaint (December 8, 2006)
Catherine Lewan, a defendant who settled with the RIAA in one of its many law suits, is now suing Sharman Networks, the creator of Kazaa.  The compliant alleges:

  • Sharman deceptively marketed Kazza as a product allowing "free downloads";
  • the software created a shared files folder (presumably creating the RIAA law-suit liability) without disclosing this to users;
  • the software it installed spyware 

Dale's Comment: This one reminds me a bit of the law suits against Starbucks a few years back where the plaintiffs claimed the coffee was too hot or the lawsuits against McDonalds claiming McDonalds was legally liable for their getting fat. Any user of P2P software knows how the software works and, indeed, can see it working. Files being shared in the shared folder are typically shown graphically in the P2P client's user interface as they are being shared. 

While I have little sympathy for the first claims, I do believe that most P2P users never knew that the quid-pro-quo for using the software was the installation of Spyware. Indeed, when a Spyware-free version of Kazza (Kazaa Lite) was distributed without Sharman's consent I seem to recall Sharman using efforts to shut it down.

Sources: Daily Tech | ars technica| Recording Industry v. The People | P2PNet | techdirt | TechWeb 

Related Kazaa Posts:

Universal Music Group Sues MySpace over Video Transcoding Service

Universal Music Group has sued Myspace for providing a transcoding service. Myspace users upload videos to their MySpace account and Myspace transcodes them into formats playable by its users. Alleging that MySpace "encourages, facilitates and participates in the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, distribution and public performance,", UMG is seeking an injunction and unspecified damages, including up to $150,000 for each unauthorized music video or song posted on the Web site. Until last week the two were in licensing discussions. To paraphrase Clausewitz, lawsuits such as this are just business negotiations by another means.

Dale's Comment: This is an interesting claim. It may very well turn on the facts. As I understand them, MySpace is agnostic as to what the content is. It has taken some steps to limit infringing uploads. In this case its servers accept user video uploads, examine the format, if not a supported format they then transcodes it into a playable format. This seems to be similar to what YouTube and other video hosting sites do. But YouTube signed a licensing agreement with Universal (and others) after being threatened with a lawsuit. If Myspace fights this, it will likely argue that it is an ISP, and all they are providing is a tool that can be used by their users for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Assuming that MySpace is otherwise responding to Universal's DMCA take-down notices, this transcoding service may very well fall within the DMCA's safe harbour.

Sources: TechCrunch | Reuters | Yahoo! News (AP) | Forbes | * | VNUNet | MTV | CIO Today | | PCPro | | BBC | CNet | DRM Watch

California Decision: Newsgroups/Bloggers Can’t Be Sued for User Posts (Barrett v. Rosenthal)

  Text of Barrett v. Rosenthal (Nov. 20, 2006)
The California Supreme Court, in overturning a San Francisco appeals court decision, unanimously concluded that the 1996 Communications Decency Act insulates Internet providers and Web sites against lawsuits for the defamatory statements of others. The Act provides:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

In this case, the plaintiff doctors operated Web sites devoted to exposing health care fraud. Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate, posted a third party's e-mail that included harsh remarks about the doctors, calling them “quacks'' and “dishonest,''. The doctors sued for defamation, arguing that Rosenthal should be held responsible for posting the allegedly libelous material, along with the author of the e-mail.

"The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," writes Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan in the majority opinion. "Nevertheless … statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended."

While an important victory for the likes of AOL and Google, it is also important for the growing Bloggosphere as it represents the first time an individual has sought, and obtained, the same immunity from defamation liability that is provided to ISPs under this Act.

Dale's Comment: OK, so I guess this means I'm off the hook for the silly things you might post in the comment section of this blog – at least in California.

Sources: New York Times | MSNBC | San Jose Mercury News | BBC | Inquirer | Forbes (AP) | LA Times | ZD Net | Washington Times | Red Herring | USA Today | | Washington Post | Toronto Star | Reuters | Bloomberg | EFF |

Paramount Sues Loan ‘N Go For Loading Purchased Movies Onto Customer iPods

Text of Complaint (Nov 3, 2006)

This one doesn't surprise me. It is more of the same – big media bites off its nose to spite its face by bringing lawsuits against any new business model that they don't sanction. In this case, Boston's Load 'N Go offers a service to their DVD-purchasing customers, by copying their purchased movie onto an iPod. You would think Paramount would appreciate vendors adding value for customers buying Paramount's products. But no, they choose to sue, presumably to force honest purchasers to purchase the movie twice, once on DVD and again as a download. The DMCA makes such copying, even for what otherwise would be fair use, illegal. So, thanks to the DMCA, Paramount seems to have a case. Chalk another one up for Paramount and another loss for honest consumers. This is precisely the thing that drives honest consumers to BitTorrent.

[Nov 29 Update: No doubt Paramount wishes to do what Warner Bros is now doing with videos sold at Walmart. According to CNN, Techcrunch and others, if you buy Warner's “Superman Returns” at Wal-Mart, you can pay an additional $1.97 to play it on portable devices, $2.97 more to play it on PCs or laptops, or $3.97 to play it on either portable devices or PCs/laptops. Ah, the old Big Media nickel and diming profit strategy. Don't you love it!]

[Nov 30 Update: Ha! It appears the EFF has come to the same conclusion – I wonder if they read my blog before writing this.]

Sources: Engadget | ars technica | ComputerWorld | TechWeb | NeoSeeker | Information Week | MacWorld | Torrentfreak | CNet | PC Advisor | EFF | EFF 2

Judge Allows RIAA Defendant to Argue $750-per-song Damages are Unconscionable

WestLaw Version of Decision – (2006 WL 3335048 (E.D.N.Y.)) (Nov 9, 2006)
Decision Granting Leave to Amend Answer (Nov 9, 2006)
RIAA Response
Text Constitutional Challenge
The standard RIAA consumer file-copying suit seeks $750 damager per illegally downloaded song. As I reported last May, Marie Lindor argued that this amount is unconscionable when the average download price per song is 99¢ per song. Judge David Tragger agreed and has permitted the defendant to amend her defense to include that argument.

Texas Law Review Article on the Topic by: J. Cam Barker

Sources: Recording Industry vs The People | ars technica | afterdawn | the Inquirer | P2PNet | Howard Knopf

Related Posts:

Music Downloading Judged Legal in Spain

A Spanish Judge has ruled that downloading music, as "a practised behavior where the aim is not to gain wealth but to obtain private copies" is not illegal or criminal activity in Spain. The judge ruled that article 31 of the Intellectual Property Law in Spain established a right to obtain copies of music without permission, provided they were for private use and not for profit. The Spanish recording industry will appeal.

Dale's Comment: Given the recent Swedish and Finish decisions, it appears judges in different European countries are applying the European copyright directives differently in this regard.

Sources: | The Register | P2PNet | Typically Spanish | *Guardian Unlimited | San Jose Mercury News | PC Pro

RIAA Sues the Kids after Soccer Mom Fights Back

The RIAA had initially sued Patricia Santangelo, a divorced mother of five for illegal music downloading. Santangelo, whom a federal judge called “an Internet illiterate parent” plead her innocence and was interviewed on television shows saying that the RIAA was demanding $7,500 to settle the case. The RIAA claims her 20 year old daughter, Michelle, acknowledged downloading music in prior testimony and that the friends of her 16 year old son, Robert, implicated him as well. So, the RIAA is suing them too.

Dale’s Comment: One wonders if this is some form of retribution for speaking out publicly about this. No doubt this is also an attempt by the RIAA to get their message out to the average parent in hopes that they will police the downloading activities of their children more closely.

Sources: CBS | | Journal News | | Recording Industry v. The People

Related Posts:

Shawn Hogan Files Motion to Dismiss MPAA Case Based on Faulty Copyright Registration

Text of Motion to Dismiss Last August I wrote about millionaire Shawn Hogan's decision to fight back against the MPAA's allegation that he illegally downloaded "Meet the Fockers". His defense was that he did not do this and wouldn't have since he already owned the DVD. During pre-trial discovery Hogan's legal team discovered that the copyright to the movie was registered by Universal City Studios, LLLP and not the plaintiff to the lawsuit, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP. The plaintiff counters that rights to the movie were assigned to it prior to the filing of a faulty copyright registration. Hogan has filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

  1. section 17 USCS § 411(a), of the U.S. Copyright Act provides:

    …no action for infringement of the copyright in any work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title…

  2. section 17 USCS § 408(a) provides that only the "…owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim…" and
  3. since the plaintiff, if it is the owner, did not register the copyright, it has no standing to assert a claim of infringement.

Dale's Comment: If the court does dismiss the claim on this basis, however, the plaintiff could correct the copyright registration problem and institute the action a new. We'll see.

Sources: Text of Motion to Dismiss | Recording Industry v. The People | Shawn Hogan's Blog | TechDirt

Related Posts:

Danish Court Blocks

One of Europe's largest ISPs, Tele2, has been ordered by a Danish court to block, the controversial Russia-based MP3 etailer. To my knowledge, this is the first decision of its kind anywhere in the world. The decision sets somewhat of a precedent insofar as there is now an affirmative obligation of a Danish ISP to effectively censor the sites their customers can access. Tele2 has said it will appeal the decision.

Dale's Comment: This ruling can be easily circumvented by Danish web surfers simply by using any of the numerous anonymizer sites on the Internet.

Sources: Slyck

Related Posts:

Gemstar and Moxi Battle Over Interactive, Onscreen Programming Guide

In a battle reminiscent of the Gemstar/TiVo patent dispute from 2000-2003, which settled when TiVo licensed Gemstar’s patents and agreed to place TV Guide’s logo on TiVo’s onscreen program guide (see CNet account of Settlement here), Gemstar, the owner of TV Guide, is suing Moxi over its use of onscreen programming guides. Apparently this all started when Digeo, Moxi’s parent, sought to license a subset of Gemstar patents pertaining to interactive program guides (IPG). Gemstar would only agree to license the entirety of its patents to Moxi – presumably at a higher fee than Moxi was willing to pay for the subset of IPG-related patents. Moxi had first filed a pre-emptive antitrust suit in September.

Sources: Engadget HD | Seattle Times | Broadcast Newsroom | Zatz Not Funny!| PVRWire | ag-it-news

Federal Circuit CA Blocks TiVo Injunction Against Echostar Pending Appeal

TiVo won a $74M patent infringement case against Echostar on April 13, 2006. On August 18, TiVo won an injunction preventing Echostar from making and selling infringing DVRs. The injunction was immediately stayed by the Court of Appeal. Today, the injunction was stayed indefinately pending Echostar’s appeal. This means that Echostar will not have to disable its several million deployed PVRs. “There is a substantial case” for EchoStar’s appeal, concluded Circuit Judge William C. Bryson and Echostar would be harmed if it had to shut down. The ruling wasn’t based on the merits of Echostar’s ultimate case.

Dale’s Comment: I can’t say this was unexpected. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

Sources: Forbes | Bloomberg | Business Week (AP) | Mercury News | BetaNews | Red Herring | Engadget | Zatz Not Funny | Davis Freeberg | Multichannel News | TiVo Press Release | Dish Press Release

Related Posts:

StreamCast Loses District Court P2P File Sharing Case

Text of Decision
In attempting to apply the Supreme Court's new "inducement" doctrine from MGM v. Grokster, District Judge Stephen V. Wilson, the same judge that in an earlier ruling had cleared StreamCast of infringement charges, found "…evidence of StreamCast's unlawful intent … overwhelming", held StreamCast liable for inducing Morpheus users to infringe on copyright and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment. Subject to any successful appeal, StreamCast is liable for up to $150,000 for each copyrighted song or movie shared with Morpheus which, of course, trends towards a damages value of $infinity! 🙂

The rather unclear Supreme Court doctrine of inducement requires a "clear expression or other affirmative steps" beyond mere distribution of P2P software to find infringement. Judge Wilson held that the test was met because: (i) Internal e-mails by StreamCast executives showed their awareness of users' infringements, they were eager to insure the supply of copyrighted content on the network, (iii) they implemented features that made it easier to infringe, and (iv) they failed to implement technology that could have deterred some infringements.

After MGM v. Grokster, Sharman Networks (Kazaa), Grokster, iMesh (Bearshare), eDonkey, Qtrax, Mashboxx and others settled. StreamCast was one of the few that decided to fight on. A StreamCast spokesperson said the company may appeal. LimeWire remains the only other large P2P Player still fighting on.

Sources: Ars Technica | EFF | New York Law Journal | Kathy Kirkman | L.A. Times | (AP) | Daily Tech | | Internet News | The Register | Slyck | Reuters | P2PNet | techdirt | Wired (AP) | | RIAA Press Release | DRM Watch

Related Posts:

LimeWire Countersues RIAA Alleging Conspiracy

Text of Amended LimeWire Counter Claim (Nov 17, 2006)
Text of LimeWire Counter Claim (Sept 25, 2006)
Text of Arista Complaint Against LimeWire (Aug 4, 2006)
On August 4, the music industry sued LimeWire as it had every other major P2P provider before. LimeWire's parent, Lime Group LLC, has filed a counter suit alleging that the case against it is "part of a much larger conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models". LimeWire also charges the record companies with trying to extend their monopoly by forcing music distributors to work only with their affiliated filtering system supplier. LimeWire says it developed a filtering application to prevent illegal downloading and encourage legal content purchasing. But the record companies refused to give the developer access to the metadata that uniquely identifies each song in order for the filtering system to work.

Sources: Slyck | The Register | CrunchGear | Mercury News (AP) | Pocket-lint | Beta News | Computer World (IDG) | Macworld | | GMSV | Recording Industry vs. The People

Related Posts:

Sony Rootkit Settlement Faces Opposition in Canada

The Canadian Sony rootkit settlement reached a few weeks ago is facing Canadian opposition. It still must be approved by a Federal Judge. The case was finally settled in the U.S. on May 23, 2006. The Canadian settlement lacks some key provisions contained in the U.S. settlement including: an obligation to do security testing before using similar technologies in the future; explicit consumer disclosure of such future use; and injunctive relief rights against Sony if it fails to do so.

Sources: ars technica | Michael Geist | Slyck | Sony Canada's Settlement Site

 Related Posts:

Another BitTorrent User Conviction

Scott R. McCausland, 24, of Erie, Pennsylvania is one of three persons convicted of copyright infringement using a BitTorrent network. He faces up to five years in prison and a possible fine of up to $250,000 U.S. He had been using the Elite Torrents network which the FBI raided and shut down on May 25, 2005. McCausland had seeded the Elite Torrents nework with Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith more than six hours before it was released in theatres. It was subsequently downloaded more than 10,000 times before the network was shut down. He will be sentenced on December 12.

The press is calling this the “first” BitTorrent conviction. Perhaps this is the first North American conviction, but I reported back on October 5, 2005 that a Hong Kong man was convicted of copyright infringement while using BitTorrent. That, is the earliest BitTorrent conviction I am aware of.

Sources: Standard News Wire | ComputerWorld | Technology News Daily | | CD Freaks | PC World | Security Pro News | North county Gazette | U.S. Newswire

Related Posts:

eDonkey Settles for $30M and Shuts Down after Adverse Ruling

After a judge in New York's southern district ruled that eDonkey facilitated illegal activity by allowing users to swap copyrighted material over the eDonkey2000 network, MetaMachine Inc., the firm behind eDonkey, Overnet and their P2P variants, has agreed to cease distribution of their P2P software and to pay the RIAA $30 million to avoid a copyright infringement suit. The company also agreed to take measures to curtail file sharing by existing eDonkey and Overnet users. Despite the shutdown and settlement, existing users of eDonkey, and an open source version called eMule, will likely go on sharing files unabated. While BearShare, Kazza, Grokster and others have settled with the RIAA, Warez P2P, Limewire and Soulseek are examples of major P2P services that have not settled. The judge must approve the final terms of the eDonkey settlement.

Related Posts:

Sources: ars technica | CNet | San Jose Mercury news (AP) | | Slyck | | PC World | Mac World | Playfuls | PC Pro | BetaNews | The Register | Syndey Morning Herald | DRM Watch

iMesh Raises BearShare from the Dead and Takes it ‘Legit’

Back on May 9 I reported that the Free Peers had settled with the RIAA for $30M, shut down its BearShare P2P service and sold the BearShare assets to iMesh owner Musiclab. As it turns out, like Kazza before it, iMesh is re-introducing a new version of Bearshare (version 6 – currently in beta). BearShare 6 includes a “ToGo” portable music subscription, compatible with Windows Plays for Sure portable music players, as well as social networking features. The service will not be compatible with iTunes, iPods or the forthcoming Zune service from Microsoft. Subscribers will have access to 15 million songs, including 2.5 million from major labels. It will start with a free 30-day beta trial and eventually start charging a monthly fee.

Sources: | TechWeb | Business Wire | ZD Net | Reuters | iTnews Australia | P2P Weblog | BetaNews

Related P2P Going ‘Legit’ Posts:

Related iMesh/Bearshare Posts: