RIAA Claims Initial Legal Win vs. Napster

A number of people have written in with the initial news blurb that the RIAA ^[?] has won the initial battle against Napster. The US District Court in San Fransico has ruled that Napster is not just a "mere conduit" for files, but that it is actually liable for material transfered by the program. This comes on the heels of MP3.com's recent loss to the RIAA as well. Ouch.

Comments

Re:What type of ruling is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

This "ruling" came as a result of what is known as a "summary judgement." Basically, Napster asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit based on a given code of law. In this case, they were saying that they shouldn't be responsible for what is on thier system. This ruling DOES NOT say for sure whether or not Napster is responsible for content. All it says is that based on what was presented in court, the judge needs more information. This will be presented at trial. This is pure spin and signifies nothing. It has no legal weight, other than signaling that the case will go to trial. This Yahoo! article is nothing more than a press release posing as news. The RIAA is basically hoping that this gets out and scares all the napster users (which it may, given the poor wording and misleading sentences). Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, however the preceding statement should not be construed at personal legal advice, as it merely reflects opinion.

RIAA expands lawsuit to include Microsoft Corp

[bjk4]

A recording industry trade group, announced today that they will be expanding their lawsuit to include other software vendors including Microsoft Corp. A representative for the RIAA remarked that because of the resent victory against the hacker program Napster, they feel the path is open for closing all piracy havens.

The RIAA claims that Microsofts "Network Neighborhood", when combined with the search functionality of the suspiciously named "Find..." command, can be used to search for and copy copyrighted materials.

Microsoft rebutted saying that the "Network Neighborhood" is an innovative tool used to aid the flow of information between computers. They went on to say that this technology, which can be used legitimately, is already in jeapordy if the Justice Department breaks the company apart. "Without a central leadership, invention will cease in the Windows Operating system. A second lawsuit would make it difficult for Microsoft to compete against other insurgent companies and would stifle the global economy," said a Microsoft representative.

The RIAA rejects this argument as handwaving. They feel there is no economic guarantee for any company. Individual artists, on the other hand, deserve the fullest protection under the law in order to make a profit for their protecting trade group.

Napster, meanwhile, welcomes the opportunity to work with the software giant, Microsoft in its epic battle against the recording industry giant. A spokewoman for Napster said that their position in the lawsuit is comparable to the pebble David used to slay Goliath. She neglected to mention which company was Goliath.

U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel in San Frasisco mentioned that because of the magnitude of the case, millions and perhaps billions of U.S. government money might have to be spent in lawyers' fees during the case. "This case promises to create a larger commotion than Kennith Starr or Judge Ito every accomplished," she commented.

Re:Mental Judge

[rjeong]

Before you go spouting your horn, try reading the law that they are arguing, or at least the summary. The Copyright Office Summary of 'The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998' states under Limitation for Transitory Communications

In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically in the operation of a network. In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's activities must meet the following conditions: The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider. The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider. The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary. The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.

So this has nothing to do with the judge. It is the Congress and the way they designed the law. Here's three links or at least skim before you go delving into this subject.

Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html|

Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf

Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html|

Read up!!!!

Rich

RIAA needs to be sued for price-fixing/racketering

[weave]

When will someone sue RIAA? All of its member companies coincidently all agree to charge more for pre-recorded CDs than cassettes of the same material, even though the cost of manufacturing a CD is far lower than a cassette.

Now they are trying their best to stifle any attempts to connect artists with the buying public via any methods other than the old traditional method of going through a traditional label (which are members of RIAA).

(And don't give me the tired old excuse that CDs are "worth more" that cassettes due to their higher quality. If that logic held, then that new P3 that you bought to play online 3D first-person shooters should have cost you several million dollars (compared to an original Tandy TRS-80 4K computer with cassette tape drive, circa 1978...))

Re:Mental Judge

[MO!]

In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider?s activities must meet the following conditions:

The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.

With Napster, this IS the case - The user initiates the transfer via their local client program

The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider.

With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.

The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.

With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.

Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary.

With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT contained on Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.

The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.

With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT modified by Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.

So basically, I don't see what you're argument is... Perhaps you should be familiar with the Napster service before spouting your horn.