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.
Napster is dead. Put a fork in it, it's done.
But what of Gnutella/BearShare/LimeWire? What of KaZaa (sp?) or mp3.com?
The pont is, if Patel finds that the 5 music companies have stifled legitimate competition, then other legitimate competition may return.
Sure, Napster is dead, but once a precedent is set, nothing's to stop someone else from setting up a clone service. Clearly, the demand is still out there.
But this would go as well for any other music sharing service. So, it's not really a failure in that regard. Also, it's a loss for RIAA, which is enough to make me raise my voice in song. Let'em try to take that away.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"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
Actually, the judge seems to be basing her decision on sound legal principles. The sentence you qoute suggests otherwise, but it was written by the reporter at Wired. The quote about both sides being "dirty" probably refers to the doctrine of "Unclean Hands" which basically states that you can't benefit in a civil suit from illegal actions. In other words, if the record industry has illegally claimed copyright of songs that actually belong to artists, then they can't claim damages.
"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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Possible criminal acts of the music industry are relevant as they are important to the continuation of the culture.
I noted a comment above that this is unimportant, because napster is dead, etc. Sort of like saying that murder is unimportant because the victim is dead and you can't bring the victim back.
Wrong. Unless you _like_ a world run by crooks, or are something of a crook or a criminal yourself.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"The crux of Napster's copyright ownership argument revolves around a strange clause in copyright law called "works-for-hire," which essentially determines who owns the songs and albums. Any work of art -- in this case, music -- commissioned or created by an employee of a company becomes the property of that business. For example, reporters who work for newspapers don't own their stories."
Although not 100% legally accurate, the point is that the ownership of copyright for something you don't create is basically a function of contract law - i.e., the recording contract. Most companies who pay for the creation of IP (record companies, software companies, etc.) attempt to argue and contract themselves into a "work for hire" status - which means, essentially that they (the company) are the author in the eyes of the law.
However, work for hire, as the article states, is a doctrine that is controlled by statutory tests - simply saying something is a work for hire (even if the artist agrees to that in a contract) doesn't make it so.
So what if it isn't a work for hire? Traditionally contracts have a back up assignment of rights. The problem is when such an assignment does not cover rights that, for example, don't exist at the time the contract was written. Imagine a contract written in the 70's - it obviously isn't going to assign rights to digital distribution to the record company.
This comes into play in other industries - the publishing industry has recently had this problem with old author contracts where the author assigned all rights to publish a work "in book form" (standard language in older publishing agreements). Courts have found that electronic book rights still belong to the authors (or their estates).
Of course, the lawyers now use a simple addition to the assignment along the lines of "in all media whether now know or hereafter developed" to show that the assignment is everything now and in the future.
When you read articles about court decisions, you have to remember that a reporter is quoting the two or three juicy sentences in dozens of pages of dry legal text.
While Patel's logic, as quoted by Wired, might not impress you, you might want to check the full text of this decision.
This is especially true of Supreme Court decisions, which usually have hundreds of pages of decisions from the majority and individual justices. The press makes them look like a single issue decides the case, but that's almost never true.
Look past the flashy quotes, dude.
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
The argument that the Napster lawyers are making is that the labels don't actually hold the copyrights anyway since the artists were essentially working under contract as freelancers. If this is the case then the copyrights would revert back to the artists.
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!
Judge Patel, a jurist who has most decidedly taken the side of the plaintiffs in the Napster case, wants to make her decision airtight. There's no way that Napster will be able to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if she allows the defendants to explore every possible line of defense before they lose the case.
I will join the long line of scholars, lawyers, and laymen who rightfully criticized the Napster opinions, not for their politics, but for their inartful application of an incompetently-drafted law. Judge Patel's previous opinions have been nothing for her (or, more likely, her law clerks) to be proud of.
That being said, hearing such conspiracy-theories that a life-appointed judge is somehow "in the pocket" as opposed to just plain incompetent advanced by some, including those who claim to be law students, is nothing short of irresponsible.
Not to mention incorrect. As some, including Mr. Fair Use Guy, have wrongly suggested, Patel seeks to insulate her opinions from Supreme Court appeal.
One who claims to be a law student should know that Patel's decisions are appealed first to the Ninth Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And while the three-ring-circus-like Ninth Circuit is wholly unpredictable, capable of disputing ruling such as whether the sky is blue, the Supreme Court would not touch the over-litigated quagmire that is Napster with a ten-foot whatever - it not federalism, there's no circuit split, and there's not a damn interesting issue to be found in ten billion pages of pleadings.
It will be a cold day in hell before the Supreme Court agrees to hear any of the Napster decisions. Jerry Falwell will smoke crack before the Court hears Napster. John Katz will write a useful article before the Court hears Napster. Microsoft will release WinXP on a GPL, disco will return, and someone will actually mod up one of my postings before the Supreme Court hears Napster.
The Ninth Circuit is the end of line - and Patel can't do a damn thing to stop the Ninth Circuit from reviewing her - as they've proven themselves willing to review damn near everything. So ditch the conspiracy-theory crap, and recognize bad law when you see it.
I commend unto you Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
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.