Slashdot Mirror
More File Sharing Misadventures in Court
tusixoh writes "Arguments were presented in federal court on Monday in a lawsuit filed against the file-sharing services Grokster, StreamCast, which distributes the Morpheus peer-to-peer software, and Kazaa by record and movie companies claiming that illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and stifling creativity. CNN has the report."
I think this case may bring to head many issues.
/. white paper? :)
I assume Limewire is in the same technological grouping as Kazaa etc.? I've been playing with it and am very impressed; it's much easier than Napster and quite capable.
I'm fascinated by the P2P technology for its possibilities as a distributed sharing technology. I'm curious though, how sharing files out of homes and businesses (I assume all these T3 lines I see don't go to people's houses!) is legally different from putting the same files on commercially hosted filespace? (In case I said that wrong, I mean the server space we rent or get gratis with an ISP account.) I don't think there is a difference, aside from it being harder to get caught.
The other Q is what % of the current file sharing is legal, and I mean under current standards of fair use for the copyrighted material. This was a factor in the VCR litigation, that the machines have significant legitimate uses outside of pirating movies or TV shows -- your nephew bar mitzvah, weddings, fair use, etc. Is a significant fraction of your sharing legal, or minor violations as where you try-before-you-buy?
I know many people believe copyright law should change. But whether you do or not, you must see this sharing technology will either cause significant changes or be banned. I don't see a stable path ahead. What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying? For the sake for argument, let's make this person really sympathetic: If he doesn't sell 100 copies of his unbelievably wonderful epic work, he's dead, or his daughter doesn't get dialysis, or whatever is takes. With piracy unchecked, he will sell 10 copies. Without piracy, 1,000. Digital watermarks? Some sort of anti-copying technology? A sudden wave of honesty among potential buyers? Music, video, etc. long has been and always will pilfered, but if P2P increases that significantly it will hurt revenues, even if it doesn't happen to now.
How about a
I'll stop 'stealing' your products when:
A) You lower the price on your products to something sane and reasonable. And let's not bullshit, okay? You've been nailed twice by the FTC for price fixing, and yet somehow I still can't find any CD I want for less than $15 unless I buy it used-- and of course then I'm still a thief in your eyes, just for a different reason.
B) You don't foist crappy product on your customers. I'm tired of buying CDs on the strength of 1 or 2 good songs that got radio airplay, only to find out that the other 9 or 10 songs on the CD are complete and utter shit.
C) You allow returns of product for no other reason than customer dissatisfaction. Put the time, money and energy you're wasting on DRM into finding a way to allow this sort of thing that minimizes abuse of the system.
There you go, Hilary. Pick any two of the above and do them, and I'll happily start buying CDs again. Otherwise, fsck off and die.
Respectfully,
~Philly