"Beachles" Mash-Up Creator Becomes World's Richest Man Overnight; EMI
Merely the Innocent Victim of His Insatiable Desire for Power

Poor, poor EMI. All they try to do is give music to the people, and
heartless thieves like "Clayton" of claytoncounts.com try and take it
all away. You think you're so cool, Clayton? Trying to make a mash-up
of Sgt. Pepper's and Pet Sounds? Trying to release it on your website?
"The Beachles." Bet you thought that was a pretty clever name, huh? I
bet you wish all music could be made with only a hammer and sickle,
don't you Clayton? Shameful. And to think that you made money doing it
really makes me -

Oh, wait, it was all released for free on his website? He actually
didn't make any money? Oh, well, whatever... just think about all the
money EMI is going to lose from this! That's what sucks about being
the CEO of a major company. Everyone thinks it's all glitz and
glamour. Not so. You can't catch any tax cuts from the government, you
can't get laid, and everyone's going around taking your commodities
and mashing it all up. I say suing this "Clayton" for $30 million is
just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done -

Oh, wait, in EMI's lawsuit, they also want the IPs of every individual
who downloaded it? The dates and times they were downloaded, as well
as the number of times each IP downloaded the mash-up? Umm, I guess
that's cool, too. Taking it a step farther. Reeeallly teaching these
people a lesson. I'm sure you all remember what happened when The Grey
Album came out, in protest of EMI's wishes. Ever since its release, no
one has bought The White Album or The Black Album. And more than
likely, no one will, ever again.

In a perfect world, of course, an EMI board member would be able to
stand over all of our shoulders every time we sat down at a computer
and would flick our ears when we tried to download or copy any music.
But hey, we have to make due with what we got. That's why we need to
nip this one in the bud and support EMI's totally legitimate and
necessary $30 million lawsuit against one man. If we can just do that,
then we are one step closer to our ultimate goal: that one day,
people, one sweet day, music will be completely organized, regulated,
and sterile.

Whatever you think of EMI's decision to bring suit (they probably have a decent case),

No, you don't have to profit to infringe, which is why filesharing is illegal. Profit does figure into the 4-part test for the narrow affirmative defense of "fair use" (off the top of my head, the factors are (in no particular order): substantiality of portion copied, market replacement effect, transformative quality of derivative work, commercial v. non-commercial use), but at least 2 of those factors (substantiality and transformative quality) could very well favor EMI.

Oh, wait, in EMI's lawsuit, they also want the IPs of every individual
who downloaded it? The dates and times they were downloaded, as well
as the number of times each IP downloaded the mash-up?

No, you don't have to profit to infringe, which is why filesharing is illegal. Profit does figure into the 4-part test for the narrow affirmative defense of "fair use" (off the top of my head, the factors are (in no particular order): substantiality of portion copied, market replacement effect, transformative quality of derivative work, commercial v. non-commercial use), but at least 2 of those factors (substantiality and transformative quality) could very well favor EMI.