Slashdot Mirror
Napster Finally Gets a Break
jark writes "Wired News is reporting that 9th District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the five major record labels must prove they own thousands of music copyrights as well as prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music. " Definitely a twist
in this ongoing saga.
"prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music"
I had problems understanding this phrase until I got to the second to last paragraph in the article:
"Napster lawyers have alleged the record industry withheld their copyrights from digital music services until three of the major labels could launch MusicNet. Once that service was launched, just days after Napster was shut down, company could only obtain wildly restrictive licenses to sell music. "
So THAT's what this is all about... The record industry isn't against digital music, they're against anyone besides themselves making use of it. If they had their way, I know of at least a few radio stations that would be shut down. Where does it end? Am I going to have to change to the Sony-owned radio channel to hear the latest music???
the article brings up some interesting points. although napster is currently pretty much dead in the water, it seems that the company may get some sort of compensation do to the anti-competative practices of the record lables.
"MusicNet did not suddenly appear full blown from the head of a fictitious entity. The evidence suggests that plaintiffs formed a joint venture to distribute digital music and simultaneously refused to enter into individual licenses with competitors, effectively requiring competitors to use MusicNet as their source for digital licensing."
granted, i am not a lawyer, but it would seem that napster would have some recourse if monopolistic/anit-competative practices could be proved, and napster may have a solid future (or others) in the pay-per-play area of online music...
-ryan
"In contrast, (the record labels') allegedly inequitable conduct is currently ongoing and the extent of the prospective harm is massive. If Napster is correct, plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market. The resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest."
At least Judge Patel sees that the RIAA is not actually acting in the interests of their artists, but in the interest of their wallets.
The Recording Industry setttled, to avoid having to do this very thing....that was brought up by the attorneys for MP3.com. This will mostly be the same scenario here as well. The case is somewhat moot anyway. BMG owns the majority equity stake in Napster as I understand it, so it would be in both parties interests to settle. Except for the fact that the DOJ is looking into anti-trust allegations of the RIAA and members. (collusion). Once the Recording Artists Coalition filed an amicus brief on behalf of Napster (and the RAC doesn't like Napster), I think that Judge Patel woke up. The artist who the RIAA claims to represent say the RIAA doesn't and can't because they don't own the copyrights.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I'm reading between the lines here, but this development in the Napster case seems to parallel something that recently occurred with online internet rebroadcasts of radio programs. These rebroadcasts were temporarily suspended because, for the most part, the contracts between the on-air talent did not allow for rebroadcasting (these contracts were written prior to streaming audio was developed). Essentially, the work of radio on-air talent was being rebroadcast without them getting paid for it.
This RIAA mess seems to be this: Not all artists have assigned their copyrights to the record labels. Some of these assignments may rather be in the form of licenses which do not extend to internet rebroadcasting rights. This, even if RIAA members may have the right to publish music, they may not necessarily have the right to rebroadcast that music on the internet. If they do not have that right, then Napster is not interfering with that right.
Of course this does not get rid of the whole case. There is certainly much music out there of which the copyrights are owned entirely by RIAA members, and the RIAA lawsuit would still be valid with respect to this music.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
This is a HUGE blow to the music industry's case. The implication of Judge Patel asking them to produce copyright information is that, if they can't do it, the ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY would be forever changed. Right now, music companies strap artists into super-restrictive contracts where anything the artist makes instantly becomes property of the label. This means that, perhaps, the power of ownership could fall back into the hands of the rightful owners - the artists. The RIAA knows this, and now they have to defend themselves. Ahh, sweet irony...
The other serious side effect of this is that the judge realizes that, like the article said, the music industry is moving into a monopoly of online digital music. We all know that the Napster law suit was raised not because the music industry doesn't want online transmission of music, but because they were late to the game and Napster beat them to the punch (and to the money). Judge Patel is calling their bluff and is saying that you can't shut down Napster just to steal their business.
This is a HUGE turning point to this case, and don't be surprised if the issue of copyright holding in music as a whole is revisited because of this line of inquiry.
taco
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
That would be kind of silly, seeing as how copyright is a monopoly (as granted by the government). The "bigger" part would be whether or not they abused that monopoly.
The issues here seems to hinge on two questions:
1) Do the labels really hold the copyrights for the works, as they claim?
If the works were NOT for hire, then the monopoly priviledges remain with the authors, and the labels' case suddenly has no ground.
2) Have the labels engaged in anti-competitive practices by refusing to fairly license the works?
This is an important issue and may help decide the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, I'm not clear as to whether this case can do anything about the labels' anti-competitive behavior. (Kinda like if a woman proves her husband is a child molester during a divorce suit, that only gets her the divorce and custody of the kids. Getting him arrested for pedophilia becomes a different legal matter.) I'm a little worried that if the details of the case head too far in this anti-competitive direction, that the labels will offer Napster a fat (and confidential) settlement to avoid setting any precedents or creating useful fodder for future cases.
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.