Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sues Scour: Will Google Be Next?
BoFiS writes: "Well it seems the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was feeling left out of all the suing action going on between the RIAA and Napster because News.com reports that they have filed a suit against Scour for aiding in the transfer of illegal/bootleg copies of movies. The article also talks about the DivX format that many movies come in, but not much about the suit itself." Scour may raise privacy concerns, but isn't their service essentially content-agnostic?
The fact that you can download the music from within the scour interface is irrelevant. Music files on the internet may be copyrighted by bg labels, or they may not be. The industry has a very large share of the copyrights out there, but that doesn't mean that they should be given control over ALL music distribution.
People are copying copyrighted music out there and I think that is unethical. However, I do not believe that going after the mode of transmission is justified. The cost, which will be squashing independently recorded music forever, is simply too great.
In short, don't be trapped by the industry's mind control attempts.
Not surprisingly, the Proskauer firm, the same one in the 2600.com case is involved, as is Judge Kaplan's old firm, Paul, Weiss. I am personally disappointed that David Kendall of Williams & Connolly represents some of the Plaintiffs. Most may know him as one of Clinton's lawyers, but I know him (personally) as a longtime and good advocate of First Amendment rights.
Who will they sue after all the people trying to develop person-to-person file sharing are out of business? Will HTTP servers become illegal? Will Gnutella and any other software that could be used for copying be restricted under the DCMA? Will they sue the Internet backbone providers for allowing copyrighted content to flow through their routers?
Well, that might be a bit extreme even for Hollywood. But the MPAA and RIAA's position seems to be that any software which allows arbitrary person-to-person file transfer is illegal. Or is it just indexing that makes such illegal?
It shouldn't need to be said, I find this attitude completely unacceptable. HTTP clients are not illegal merely because I can find illegal content on somebody else's HTTP server using a search engine. Napster and Scout are more streamlined, efficient, and convenient versions of the same thing; I simply don't see any fundamental or legal difference.
I think MPAA et al are making a big mistake. Rather than trying to eliminate file-sharing services, they should invest in building their own--- one with features they like. Instead, they may end up in a world where the services currently provided by Scour or Napster are done in a distributed fashion (or in an appropriate jurisdiction) and they have no influence.
When a service that's of value to the "average slashdot user" is endangered, we'll see like six articles with updates, and interviews with the agency trying to shut them down. But when the little guy is actually getting screwed when they really aren't doing anything wrong, it gets shrugged off because it doesn't affect you people.
Scour may or may not be operating in the legal limits of the laws, but one can certainly see how it's service is questionable. But the precent (not a legal precedent, it's never been to court) set by OLGA scares me. It really, really does.
OLGA used to hold about 33,000 files. Now it holds about 1,500.
-bugg
This is something I've wondered for a while about recording companies' wierd file-first-and-ask-questions-later policy:
my.mp3.com... At least they try to limit content access to at least those who have had a real physical duplicate of the album at some point.
But, yet, they get sued by record companies. The solid basis of the record companies case: The copies that the users are accessing are not copies of the cds they purchased, but of copies from another source. In other words, their case is based on a technicalty. But, likely a solid one.
Why, though? If record companies kill my.mp3.com and verifier-controlled services like it, then all the users will move over to unchecked storage sites like myplay.com and distributed file sharing systems like napster, gnutella, freenet, etc., all (or at least most if indexing is contributory infringement) of which are protected by the betamax ruling, because they have one or more significant legitimate uses. Are they really that short-sighted?
As much as I want large, firm rights and hard freedom on the net, and as much as I am disgusted by those big, solid corporate conglomerates, I am afraid I must side with the MPAA based on past experience. Let me probe deeper into the situation.
One of my friends was the head of a theater and movie rental store that specialized in adult entertainment and movies (don't make jokes, just read on). Unfortunately he recently had to pull out of the market after his sales had dropped significantly from since last year(the year broadband connections dramatically increased along the country).
Using common screen capture devices along with VCR's, (then later DVD's as the tech progressed), pirates began trading clips, then eventually full adult movies over usenet and irc and ftp, not to mention the new arrival of gnutella, freenet, and scour's client. Now, I'm not drawing size comparisions with Napster, but you must remember that it's not just size that matters, but how it's actually used. Many Napster users actually buy the CD's they pirate. But with the stigma attached to adult entertainment, such films get pirated big time anonymously as people would rather not be seen buying erotic films. My friend's theater dropped over the months in clients, and now about only 2-3 people per day come, as opposed to about 50 or so from last year. He asked a few of his few remaining regulars why sales were dropping so much, and the usual reply he got was, "It's easy to get porn for free anonymously on the net" When he was about to close down, he showed me his business log, reporting that his yearly sales had fallen by 31% from the year before. Because of that, he decided to withdraw from his store and went to look for another job.
I know Slashdot people object to the term piracy, but it definitely hurts others, be it artists, store-owners, or corporate suits. I know the movie industry could never collapse like that, but perhaps the events I have seen with my friend in the adult entertainment industry are harbingers of what may happen to your local video store owner as movie piracy becomes large-scale. I dislike the MPAA, but I think they have a duty to protect everyone in the movie business from potential damage. I hate to say this, but good luck in your suit, MPAA.
"The most fortunate of persons is he who has the most means to satisfy his vagaries."
"The most fortunate of persons is he who has the most means to satisfy his vagaries."
- Marquis De Sade
the RIAA is targeting companies that make a point to offer copyrighted music. there is also an interview with hillary rosen on news.com where she specifically says that they are not just randomly suing people.
in short, the assertion that they will be going after google is goddamned stupid.
a search for mettalica mp3z on scour looks like this, whereas one on google gives you this.
you can download the mp3z directly from within the scour 'interface.' that is NOT neutral.
have a nice day.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.