Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, MPAA Lose Suit Against Streamcast and Grokster
ha-reed writes "News.com is reporting that a federal court judge in Los Angeles has handed down a ruling that Streamcast Networks (the company that makes Morpheus) and Grokster are not liable for copyright infringements due to files that are traded with their software. The judge made the comparison between file sharing software and VCR's that many supporters of file sharing often use." EFF has the decision (1.4Mb PDF) online (and a .torrent is
here
in case eff.org melts, which it won't). See our most recent story about the lawsuit.
Am I the only one who had the Final Fantasy battle victory music pop into their heads after seeing this headline?
Of course, my verbal reply would be. "Duh, its about time." But hey, this is good.
I hope the judge gets some nookie for this one.
no
You can almost hear everyone at the RIAA doing that Scoobie-Doo voice..."Rah-Oh"....
I am gonna celebrate this landmark victory by downloading move movies from kazaa..
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
It's News.com.com.
Score: Common Sense 1, RIAA/MPAA 50
The system might actually work!
Ticker tape parade on me!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
GGA, especially the EFF.
Maybe Verizon can site this in their appeal.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
someone in the judicial ranks has recognized the difference between a tool and what people choose to do with it.
Judge Wilson, who decided this case, is known as a libertarian. He's no corporate stooge, as some have suggested, just becasue he ruled that Kazaa can be sued in the US.
Now that we finally got some results on the merits, we can see that we may actually be in good hands here.
I know of a guy who would have loved that kind of news.. a couple years ago.
Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
becuase you KNOW they WILL appeal...
until i see a supreme court judgement, i'm not going to bother to celebrate.
Runnin' On Empty
The music industry will appeal. The music industry INTENDS to win, however much money they must spend, and however many appeals they must request.
.. that this is the start of brains begining to function properly and that common sense is begining to provail against greed.
---
Why does New Jersey have more toxic waste dumps and California have more lawyers?
New Jersey had first choice.
... a judge that couldn't be bought. I hope he has good bodyguards.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Too bad it looks like ISPs are about to lose in a case just like this.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
...for microsoft to release their sharing client >:D
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
It was announced that the world will be ending
shortly, as a judge has shown cluefulness in regards
to technology.
I think Nelson put it best when he said, "HAH-ha!"
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
Software makers aren't liable when people use their software for criminal purposes, without their knowledge, involvement, or consent? But, but, I thought the DMCA fixed all that, so that anyone could be guilty of anything as long as the **AA said so?!?!? What did they blow all that bribe money on then?!?!?
The sad thing is this just means there is gonna be a new Super-Mega-DMCA around the corner that will outlaw transmitting any data via a computer network or some such. If the courts aren't going to do what the guys with money, errr, the "people" want, the legislature will just have to do it for them.
Obviously, the immediate upshot is that -- miracle of miracles -- Stephen Wilson won't ever see another case brought by either cartel.
However, this is a good precedent. Even judges in the belly of the beast realize just how far the media giants have overextended themselves. My only disappointment is that this has no direct bearing on the "industry vs. Napster VCs" case that was recently brought.
Awesome! Now i'm gonna go get a 60 gig harddrive and set kazaalite to pir8 24/7 until it's full!! YEEEEEE HAWWWWWWW
What else has federal judge Stephen Wilson decided before this? Anything else of note?
we'll get a freely elected president....
The crux of the ruling seems to stem from the inherent deniability of the gnutella proto...
i.e. the plaintiffs could NOT prove contributory infringment, unlike in the Napster case.
All in all, a very interesting precedent is set, especially in light of Freenet.
The music and film cartel isn't going to take this lying down and appealing only increases their risk that legal p2p becomes law. Therefore, they will head for Congress and throw a lot of money around to turn this around.
That means we will have to get organized quickly to push back so they can't reverse this victory for free speech.
For those of you without bittorrent, here's a mirror with the pdf file on it.
Hah. You can hope all you want, but I don't think it's going to happen. We're talking about the RIAA. It's really just a matter of time until they control the world, and kill us all.
They did it, and we should donate money to them to thank them!
I'm going to donate $20. I want to see each one of you who posted a msg here saying "Wahoo" donate at least $20.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two companies.
Stunning? I'm not sure I'd use that word. It's a small victory, though...
"The judge made the comparison between file sharing software and VCR's that many supporters of file sharing often use."
This is in direct contradiction to the RIAA's opinion that the customer is always wrong...HA! Makes you feel good inside!
Someone buy that judge a hooker. He's earned it. :)
Does the little guy feel it get warmer? If they can't kill the makers of the weapon -- they will now turn their resources to the people pulling the trigger. I personally think that the last good music sharing system died with Audio Galaxy. (*nix client anyone). I wont get caught dead using Kazzaa. (Not because I think using Kazzaa is wrong, but rather the OS that it runs on is against my perverted rule set.) And since AG and Napster went down, any client audio/video sharing available for *nix does not have enough users or mass to go beyond top 40. I personally was more interested in music that never made it to CD in the US, and the imports were to expensive or not in the Catalog anymore.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
As KaZaA has proven it can shut clients out of the network (when it turned off the original Morpheus client), it runs afoul of the court's language in this opinion (IMHO), as by controlling that network they make a material contribution to the infringing activity. Now, all the RIAA or MPAA has to do is start issuing "realtime C&D letters" (if such a thing exists and technologically, there's no reason why it couldn't) to satisfy the "knowledge" prong of the contributory infringement test... It's a pretty good roadmap for how to go after KaZaA successfully, though it's also an interesting "vindication" (right word?) of Gnutella, etc.
Discuss?
geek. lawyer.
And what about the internet, they use it as a tool in pirating software, they should sue it too!
This victory should give everyone all the more reason to donate to EFF. Hopefully ruling will be upheld in appeals court.
Security is inversely proportional to the commitment of one desiring to circumvent it.
The VCR is a program and cable provides the service allowing illegal copies to be recorded onto your VCR.
So should Cable be sued too?
Wait no, Cable is owned by time warner of the RIAA.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Other than the low quality... a PDF of a scanned fax apparently, it is a good read, not nearly as hard a read as some other court documents I have had a look at. One of the most important quotes from the ruling in my opinion is "Here, it is undisputed that there are substantial noninfringing uses for Defendants' software..." pg.11 ln.16 to me this is basically affirming the right of p2p networks and technologies in general to exist. Hopefully this works its way around and is used against the MPAA's and RIAA's efforts to lobby for technology controls.
Have you thought for yourself today?
Does this mean Napster can sue the RIAA for their losses now?
The Supreme Court: Sony vs. Univeral - "The sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights."
first destruction of the Death Star in 'A New Hope'.
As a developer of open-source Gnutella software, I know we have a long ways to go to make p2p as ubiquitous and revolutionary as it can be, but not having legal concerns is a huge relief. I think this ruling will convince the RIAA to offer competing services instead of trying to maintain their unjust monopoly on music distribution. It will also make them go after individual users, which isn't good in general but a better strategy than attacking technology.
This ruling is very similar to Linus' recent views on DRM - don't build policy into technology, because you might disable good uses as well as the bad.
smd4985
And I thought I'd have to wait forever to start using these new-fangled p2p tools. Now where is that "piracy" button?
More seriously though anyone who doesn't innovate their own business model shouldn't bitch when someone thinks of something better...
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of reading stories about people being struck down by the exploitation of copyright laws. So I'm glad at least one judge out there realizes that file sharing is not something that should be illegal!
The central issue with pirated media is the fact that the masses simply don't want to pay for it anymore and are circumventing the business model of the distributors. It IS illegal and it borders on unethical but it is what it is. You can either fight it or use it to your advantage. And if I were the music/movie industry I'd start distributing my media for free on the net myself embedded with ads in unintrusive spots. The people would as a result like me and I'd profit from the net instead of having to waste my profits fighting it.
But let's face it, neither option is going to profit the oligopolized music/movie industry as much as it was profiting 20 years ago. Times change. They need to adapt or go out of business. This messing around with legislation just makes it worse and the pirating more rampant.
Remember Napster? Now theres Kazaa, Winmx, Gnutella, direct connect, need I go on?
My hope is that some day all the judges will strike down the greedy music industry et al. They're not fighting because they're "loosing money." They're fighting because they're loosing control. They're loosing control of their oligopoly and price fixing due to this new technology called the internet.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
The ruling and article imply that the decision only applies to distributed p2p networks, leaving the folks who manage hubs on hub-based networks still responsible for every little thing that goes through their server, usually searches, user lists and chat content.
It's akin to saying Google is somehow responsible for any illegal content found using their search engine.
... that you aren't a lawyer. This is a civil case. Anyone may appeal.
While looking up Judge Wilson from this article, someone with some respect for the difference between a technology and its application, I noticed that the page template looked familiar. Turns out that ol' Judge Charles F. Eick is a few floors down from Judge Wilson in the same building.
In case your memory is decaffinated at the moment, Eick is the judge that ruled to force SonicBlue to spy on its ReplayTV owners to collect copyright infringement proof against them for movie studios plaintiffs in a lawsuit, a ruling fortunately overturned by another judge.
Well, it turns out that a citizen's panel is reviewing Judge Eick for reappointment and needs our opinion regarding his judicial conduct. Deadline is May 5. Maybe the first step to winning the war for privacy is to make sure judges sitting on benches understand that whole 4th amendment thingie?
While it is nice to see a victory against the RIAA, I was struck by the analogy given by the judge.
"Grokster and Streamcast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."
While I don't want to get into a debate about the ethics of file sharing (I use it on occasion), this seems like poor analogy for two reasons.
First, both tools can be used in the same way, but file sharing apps provide for widespread distribution of content. Generally speaking, VCRs don't have such a far reaching capability.
Second, there are certainly valid uses for file sharing apps, it is difficult to argue that they aren't mainly used for copyrighted material that you have not paid for. VCRs on the other hand, often used for simply watching something at a different time (you are out when a particular program is being aired), or you are taping something you have a right to view (you pay for cable, and are taping a program or movie that you have paid for access to).
Again, I don't want to start another huge debate, but it seems to be an ill fitting analogy given the circumstances.
It may be about time but I honestly did not believe that one existed.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
We could all do the world a favor if we really, truly start using the P2P systems of the world as a general repository for information. Find some public domain stuff and share it. The more we do this, the more evidence there is of "substantial noninfringing use".
Check out the chilling story of Bob Kolody vs. Coca-Cola.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma
Did hell just freeze over?
Of course the costly litigation will continue and there will be chances of many overturns..
But its a good start..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What strikes me about the current situation is that there are so many court cases that have have occurred or that are currently in process that deal with similar issues to this. However, what is odd about this is that sometimes the ruling goes in the favour of the content producers but other times goes in favour of those who facilitate what the content producers see as the 'theft' of their property.
This lack of clarity seems to be as dangerous to our rights as a one-sided view in favour of the content producers. I am particularly worried whether this lack of clarity is because the judges do not have enough experience and knowledge to determine what is right and what is wrong and are simply out of touch with the Internet age. Perhaps we need some more 'net-savvy' judges?
... that Morpheus had search options that make sense for a legit service. It wasn't a straight MP3 service like Napster, you could find pretty much any type of file intelligently there. I even fired up Kazaa once so I could find a Linux distro.
No idea if those details made it into the courtroom or not, but it's really not such a hard sell when you use Morpheus to find stuff.
"Derp de derp."
Now consider this (slightly off the topic): anybody can file suit and say they sued somebody. I can go to Santa Ana, CA and file a small claims suit for $4000 against CmdrTaco because he posts dupes and I'm not getting my money's worth for a grand total of $75, and say that I sued Rob Malda. But whether I win the case is another exercise. (And no, Taco, I'm not gonna sue. I'm getting my money's worth - I don't pay! =) ) So accordingly, that somebody is sued is nothing, but that somebody who sued lost for now - in this case the RIAA - is something insanely great.
This sig no verb.
This is a great victory for anyone hates the MPAA and RIAA who have become this coporate monster that attck college students in their sleep like some common boggy man. I mean they are the type of people that charge $13 for a music album that would really cost $7. Hax40rs of the world Unite
I have mirrored the PDF in Freenet here, you must be running Freenet for it to work, but it has the advantage that the file will open up inside your browser if you want it to.
Well all I can say is that I do not even download such music that belongs under them, I get some music from my country that is not even related to their business? Will I be guilty too?
It's a little different...morpheus and grokster are programs, while Verizon provides a service that allows illegal copies to be transported.
UPS, FedEx, the USPS, any telephony carrier, and the US Department of Transportation have to pony up their records in similar situations...don't they?
Not without a court order, they don't. That is the point of the case.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
now if i only had an open grokster/kazaa client that would run on linux, i'd be all set.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
A judges job is to interpret the law as its written, not determine its validity or rewrite it - that's what legislature is for. It is not this judges job to decide if the DMCA is good or bad or unconstitutional.
We have too many judges trying to legislate from the bench and decide what laws are worth enforcing and which arent. This is *bad*, because you dont vote for a judge. Only elected officials can make new law.
What you can do, is go do some research on the three branches of government. I'll get you started. They're known as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each has a seperate and distinct purpose, and no authority over the others. The legislative makes laws, the executive arrests lawbreakers, the judicial interprets the laws and determines penalties.
I'll leave further details as an excercise for the reader. But you can criticize government much more effectively if you understand how it's supposed to work.
This is great news! The importance can not be understated w.r.t. software developer's rights.
Having submitted an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Gnutella developers, we hope that it helped.
http://www9.limewire.com/amicus_brief.pdf
So we can send a case to all the federal judges.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
MSNBC carried the story as well... http://msnbc.com/news/905306.asp?0dm=C11ST But their headline, "Judge says file-swapping is legal" is very misleading. The court decision says that writing the software is legal, using it is still another matter.
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
People do. Sorta like the gun analogy: "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and it is individuales that are swapping files. The notion of contra-ban software is silly.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Damn this mornings news just made my level of cynicism toward the judicial system drop severely.
Of course the RIAA/MPAA will appeal, probably for years over this.
BUT: This judgement was not a pesonal call nor without precident. The reasoning stated by the judge is based on laws that are over 20 years old now and fimiliar with many federal circuit judges AND the SC itself. So this ruling does give me a genuine sense of satisfaction because it does in fact weaken the RIAA/MPAA position in court substantially.
The RIAA/MPAA have of course seen this coming. That is why we see their new tactic of going after the individual.
And I say that's fine because as large and big as they are, in a year or two of court cases and a mountain of legal fees, they will have to stop and think of a way to change with the innovation rather than trying to kill innovation itself.
Maybe Apple will show them the light. It hasn't yet launched, but Apples solution is already endorsed by the RIAA/MPAA and IMHO stands a good chance of proving successfull in the marketplace. Being an OS X convert, I am waiting eagerly to be able to pay for that service.
Bravo to you, laigle :-)
Hold the users liable not the developers. Gun makers and guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
a victory for those who love to steal music
Lets send him cookies and icecream (that expensive stuff - you know the brand :-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
An anonymous Los Angeles judge receives $2500.00 in coupons to *Offshore Online Casino*, his vacation time mysteriously doubled in the court computer's scheduling system, and noticed that his inbox is completely devoid of spam. Also, 16 cases of Mountain Dew 5 cases of Bawls and 1 case of Whoop Ass were found on his doorstep.
***Ah, the fringe benefits of befriending geeks***
Then, five years later, a clone of it will appear on Linux and make headline news on Slashdot.
Then, five hours later, a clone of the headline on slashdot appears on slashdot...
Sorry, I really could not resist the temptation...
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
"Woohoo! In your face, RIAA!"
The judge said that the music companies cannot go after the people that provide the tools that might be used for trading music. The implication is to go after the people that use the tools for trading music. Expect to see a lot more students and other people who trade music to be sued - even more so now that ISPs have to give up their names.
why did they add the .com in the middle there? I would think that news.com would be a wicked cool branding device, so why did they ruin it?
Torrent?!
torrent [ táwr(schwa)nt ] (plural torrents)noun
1. rush of liquid: a fast and powerful rush of liquid, especially water
2. tumultuous outpouring: a violent or tumultuous flow
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
When you buy milk, does the clerk asks you if you're gonna add Quik(tm) in it?
Is there someone who follows you home to see if you're only gonna use allowed glasses to drink it?
When you buy something, you should have the right to do whatever you want with it (ex: modchip for Xbox, that should be legal. However Microsoft has every right to exclude moded Xbox from their Live! network since moded Xbox can allow people to cheat at games).
As far as technology goes, it shouldn't be restricted at all (i.e.: ban DRM, copy-protected "CD's" and MS's Palladium). If you allow something like that to happen, then you should also put technology in guns, so that people can't shoot other people with it. Or else let us be able to sue the gun manufacturer. That's exactly what the laws in the USA are trying to do with technology.
I'm glad I live in Canada.
While Grokster ain't liable as a contributory copyright infringer, the case wasn't dismissed. Other claims still loom.
Nonetheless, it is a good ruling and shows some of the C.D. Cal judges like Judge Wilson, much like Judge Patel in N.D. Cal, really "get it."
I am *SO* relieved to see a ruling for this case where the technological issues were not so opaque to the judge as to render his verdict senseless.
Of course, an appeal is sure to follow, but today was a great victory.
Thanks EFF! Thanks go out to all the persons and entities (Eff, Limewire, BearShare, etc) that donated time, money, resources, and effort to the assist the defendants in this landmark case.
-dave-
Now go ahead and get yourselves a "Still-Legitimate" kickass Gnutella p2p client here!
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
I guess the RIAA is going to have to change its plan from the classic: ...
Step 1: Kill filesharing.
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit!
To something more along the lines of oh I don't know using the power internet to their advantage.
Now that the [RI|MP]AA is starting to lose there lawsuits, what is the likelyhood that the dmca will stand? I mean that's really all that law was intended for in the first place, but it just got grossly outta control in the hands of lawyers.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If this decision is not overturned, then it will create even greater incentive for the RIAA to go after individual users - as they have already been doing. Unfortunately neither Fastrrack nor Gnutella provide anonymity for users of the system. See this article for a good analysis of Freenet from a legal perspective - with this ruling Freenet just got stronger.
I personally think this is a mistake. Grokster KNOWS that their application is primarily used for pirated content. Whether or not they know the details about each and every specific instance of piracy seems irrelevant if they are aware of the fact that an overwhelming majority of the users of their application are pirating content.
It's not like these services are occasionally used for piracy (just like bricks are occasionally used to break into houses). It's that the vast majority of uses involve copyright infringement.
I can't think of anything else that is used to break the law 99% of the time and only used legitimately 1% of the time, yet not subjected to some kind of control or restrictions. And the reason I think this ruling is a mistake is because I'd like to keep it that way!
That just means that Microsoft can't be sued because students share warez using simple Win XP.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
...could this enable the RIAA and MPAA to more easily go after individuals?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
I just joined the EFF, so now I'm lookin forward to stylin in my new EFF T-Shirt :-)
Hopefully they'll use my $65 in the way I wishfully dream about my Federal Tax Dollars being spent.
...this 100% american judge.
Quick! I gotta buy some HP shares!
I expect them to launch at 100% tomorrow morning.
Nothing isn't impossible anymore since HP merged with zombo-com! The new generation of printers maybe?
--firearmns, any firearms, used defensively are used to shoot badguys. Badguys come in all sizes, colors, wear various pieces of clothing, and come in any number of configs. You use the appropriate tool to deal with the appropriate problem. One badguy right up close in your face, probably better to pull a handgun. 5 badguys across the room to 100 yards away, better to use a full auto. Any number of badguys more than 100 yards away, and given an exercise limit here of small arms-rifle class, it's better to have a bolt action rifle with a scope.
The US second amendment born-with right to keep and bear was about shooting badguys working for the exisiting regime at the time, who were so oppressing the people they decided to revolt, and used the highest tech available at the time to do it.
If the badguys in some regime insist on using better and better tech, the good guys have every moral and legal right to keep up with them, and frankly, are nuts if they don't. AKs are useful because they are fairly robust and strong, function well, are easily understood and handled, relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and are an example of a tool that "just works" inside it's design-specifications envelope. They also can be switched from semi automatic operation to full automatic operation, again, a useful feature.
The concept of self defense is relatively simple. You either are for self defense in all situations, or you are not. It is a binary decision any human is free to make. Anyone may choose to not engage in self defense. The converse is true too, and the people who choose to be armed with both hardware and knowledge and have aquired the skills to be effective in self defense should never be demonized. That is intellectually and morally bankrupt, IMO.
Like all tools they may be abused, but all in all, the concept is quite easy to understand, and just because someone else may abuse something, is no reason to deny or demonize those who do not.
That is the crux of the anti-gun argument, and it boils down to only victims or potential victims are required to not be armed.
It's quite insane. It's also illogical to an extreme.
first off, it is a bout who is liable, not about if it is a right or not. the judge said that gorkster and morpheus are not liable for the actions of the users. the users are still commiting illegal acts.
also, they are apealing, so ther eis still a long way.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It seems like with every "RIAA blames file-sharing programs for piracy" article a boatload of geeks start making the absurd "well I guess knife manufacturers should be sued because people can use knifes to kill!" statements.
Here's my take on it:
With things like knives, crowbars, and other items that may be used to commit crimes, it's fairly obvious even to the common man that an overwhelming majority of people use these items in legal ways rather than illegal ways. After all, we all pretty much use knives every day (to eat with, cut various items, etc.), and there are only so many knife-related murders in a year. By simple logic we can be sure that knives are being used by the majority of people in ways that DON'T relate to hurting or killing other people, since there would be an astronomical number of knife crimes if that were the case.
Now as far as filesharing clients are concerned, it's pretty obvious to even the most technologically dense person that these programs are primarily used to illegally share materials. For one thing, if what you're sharing is legal, there's always some place you can host it: music can be freely hosted on MP3.com, text files/information on your free Geocities webpage, everything else on those Internet hard drive sites, and so on.
Yeah I know, there's going to be 100 replies to me saying "that's not true! I share Linux ISOs!" (as if you can't just download them from a host of mirror sites). Whatever. Collectively, it's pretty damn obvious that filesharing programs are being used to share things you can't share legally. They're just like head shops. Oh yeah, they sell "water pipes" for "smoking tobacco". Right. Cover your ass, I guess.
Either way, don't be surprised that the RIAA has gone after filesharing programs. Don't kid yourself. They're being used to trade copyrighted material. You know it. They know it. They don't like it, and honestly I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of what basically is a black market where their goods are exchanged freely and to millions of people.
You guys blew it. I remember years ago, before MP3s were ever popular. The RIAA probably knew about them, but didn't care. It was kept under control. Then Napster came along, and everyone and their brother was grabbing thousands of songs as fast as they could. I mean damn, it's gotten to the point where dumb fratboys who don't know squat about computers are able to get warez and MP3s easily, where it once took patience, IRC know-how, and knowing the right people. It's gone too far, and now the RIAA is getting pissed. You guys blew it, don't be surprised about what's happening.
In addition, the momentary potential for liability existed when the software was transferred from the Company to the User, and then if the Company should have reason to believe that the user will use it for infringing uses. As this information is not available to the Company at the time of software transfer to the User, they were not liable.
Furthurmore, liability does not exist because "those comanies could shut their doors and turn off their computers, and the respective etworks would still work fine."
Quoting from the judgement
"Napster possessed the ability to monitor and control its network, and routinely exercised its ability to exclude particular users from it. id. In a virtual sense, the "premises" of the infringement were the Napster network i teelf and Napster had a duty to exercise its reserved right and ability to police those premises to the fullest extent possible- The client software was an essential component of the integrated Napster system, and Napster s obligation to police necessarily extended to the client software itself. Such is not the case here- Defendants provide software that communicates across networks that are entirely outside Defendants control.
Another *very important* point:
Although it may be possible that a new version of morpheus could have been written (by streamcast) that excluded the ability to locate files with a given fingerprint (a given SHA1, for instance), they would not be required to do so as the content was not being indexed or hosted via that Company's systems.
To quote again:
"However, whether these safeguards are practicable is immaterial to this analysis, as the obligation to \\police" arises only where a defendant has the "right and abilityfl to supervise the infrinqing conduc t . See NaDster , 239 F. 3d at 1023; Fonovisa , 76 F. 3d at 262. Plaintiffs' argument - that Defendants could do more to limit the functionali ty of their software with respect to copyrighted works forgets the critical distinction, broached above, between the Napster systemH and the software distributed by Defendants."
In the case of Grokster , the network is the propriety FastTrack network, which is clearly not controlled by Defendant Grokster. In the case of StreamCast, the network is Gnutella , the open- source nature of which apparently places it outside the control of any single entity."
This is an important decision, which could affect the path of p2p development, and my personal livelihood.
Once again, a very satisfied and relieved
-dave-
Get yourself a legitimate high-preformance Gnutella client here!!
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
This doesn't set any kind of precedent at all for the college students, unfortunately for them. All the judge said was that the companies putting out the file sharing programs can't be sued because their product was being used for illegal purposes. The college students themselves were themselves making the files available, or downloading the files. Though the maker of the medium they were using to distribute files can't be sued, that's not to say that the individual users can't be.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
your civil rights have been gone for years, but you weren't even aware of it. The *AA's have done their work well, and you're proudly sporting the DMCA, PATRIOT Act, and sundry other foul pieces of work while you crow over one pathetic "victory" that was decided years ago in Sony vs. the VCR. Ouch. You Yanks oughtta smarten up, eh?
From: http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID= 15970
"On what appears to be the eve of her scoring an 11th number one hit in UK, Madonna has a simple question for those more interested in trading her song, 'American Life', online, rather than sending it to the top of the retail charts: 'What the f--- do you think you're doing?'"
-Valiss
Has anyone ever thought of suing Sony for contributory copyright infringement? I was floored by an endcap display of their products (mp3 players, cd-burners) at Frys. The big sign above the display said: "Download, burn, listen." Something like that. And yet here they are suing everyone else for using the electronics they are trying to sell by encouraging you to dl music. Of course they don't specify that you should be downloading from some legitimate pay service.
This is great news. I personally use Grokster to distribute programming and chess tips, and could not understand why legitimate uses for P2P programs seem to be unimportant when considering what these programs are all about. It looks like the courts have finally come to their senses...
Waitaminute, this hasn't gone through appeal yet...
oh dear.
M
The comparison in the article summary is interesting, but in practice I'm not sure I buy it, simply because of the way I use those tools. Over 90% of my use of VCRs is legitimate; over 90% of my use of filesharing tools violates copyright.
Honestly now -- for how many people would those numbers be particularly different?
I'm so pumped about this ruling. We should all head to the streets and celebrate!
"Satan asks courts to reverse ruling; complains 'Hell no fun covered in ice'."
Cole's Axiom: The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing
Just look at Lebanon. Everbody and their grandma had an AK-47 and a RPG. And that turned out real well.
If so, where can I send my campaign contribution?
cause of death...Lack of oxygen to the brain. The cause of this condition can vary greatly :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"
Aside from the somewhat trite sentiment, the OED prefers 'all right' over 'alright' - the latter being a recent invention (unlike 'altogether').
"We feel strongly that those who encourage, facilitate and profit from piracy should be held accountable for actions," MPAA spokeswoman Marta Grutka said. "We're hoping that people aren't taking this as an invitation to continue along the path of what is clearly illegal activity."
If we lived by these laws all the time, then producers of guns, cars, knives, computers, software, etc.. etc.. etc.. should be liable.
Picture this:
Hypothetically speaking of course.. Let's say I purchase a gun and a knife with the intent to rob a bank. I purchase a car because at some point I need to get away from the scene. I purchase a computer and W1nd0ze because I need to download information about the area and how to plan my best escape route. Clearly then, the bank that I rob should sue all the producers of these goods because they are obviously encouraging, facilitating, and profiting from this piracy (robbing a bank is closer to the true meaning of the word), and they should be held accountable.
Isn't this as ridiculous as fat people suing McD's because they just can't seem to stop eating?
But in reality I purchased that gun to protect my family. The knife is to cut tomato's since I'm a chef, and the car takes me back and forth to work. The computer allows me to update my on-line cookbook and W1nd0ze just makes it so fun and friendly!
I'm not an original pioneer, but I have to say it over since people like Marta Grutka can't make the connection.... All tools can be used for illegal purposes. Does that fact make it necessary to ban or allow suits of the makers of tools? Hell no!
Down with RIAA and the MPAA!
All this ruling means is that the corporations which make the software aren't liable for what the users use the software for. /. users don't represent the companies, you're THE USERS.
And taken with the Verizon ruling (and you KNOW the RIAA will cite it) all this means is that the only people they can go after are you, the USERS.
We won one! Yeah!!!!!!! oh BABY!
w0000000000000000000000000000t
I am three times happier about this than you.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
jail4judges
Sherman Skolnick
Mike Brown solutions (check legal)
defrauding america (great book, recommended)
That should get you started.
Going after the people who are using the service for illegal activities is a good thing.
Firstly this is the proper and right way these things should be handled, secondly it's a lot more expensive and time-consuming for the RIAA and MPAA. That means that they'll have less time to spend recruiting the sort of great new talent we expect from them...
The Hallilujia Chorus is heard (and subsequently downloaded)...
Wow. I'm impressed. There's actually a judge that isn't in someone's pocket, and can see things clearly. This ruling is a special gift to myself and independant musicians like me, since they're not going to shut down the P2P networks that we use for self promotion.
The RIAA and MPAA needed this, honestly. After going too long with too much power, it's nice to see them not get their way...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Given that the users are more than likely 13-24 year old kids, slapping them with multi-billion dollar lawsuits and threatening jail time isn't going to sit well with parents eventually. Parents, and the adults those children turn into, will eventually force the industry to turn the other cheek as long as the courts squash any legislative/corporate browbeating of the 1st Amendment. Because so many people DO filetrading at least on some level, it's only adding to the sense of insanity that the XXAA's have had any success so far at all. This ruling, given the way US law relies on the sentiment of precedent, is indeed landmark since it shows a clear demarcation of what the courts will and won't consider a malicious tool for copyright infringement. Next step for the P2P crowd, of course, is embedded encryption and blind transfers I suppose. Then, Verizon rulings regardless, users will be able to do what they will and the XXAA's will have to rely on traditional law enforcement ideas instead of corporate trampling of the 4th Amendment.
One word:
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!
(This text added because apparently my wildcat is lameness. Let's see if this will fix it..."
I tried washing windows but they are still odiferous....
Did you just make up that word? Windows is/are odoriferous.
it's likening a computer to an AK-47. One is a piece of silicon that does logical analysis and the other is a fucking gun.
I thought an AK was a "rifle", not a "gun". A "rifle" is a tool used by people to kill people. A "gun", especially a "fucking gun", is an appendage built into adult male mammals, used for the elimination of urine and for copulation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I dunno about that. The defendents were charged not just for running SMB indexing services (which true, might be legal under this ruling) but also for direct copyright infringement of up to hundreds of songs. Because they were involved in direct infringement, and because they (Peng, for instance) kept track of things like "top 20 searches" that would make them knowledgeable about specific acts of infringement, they may remain liable to contributory or vicarious infringement claims.
Which, IMO, is what they should have been doing from day 1 and all they should be allowed to do. Go after the people who are illegally trading music (the actual criminals), not the software developers or the ISPs.
Do you think prisons budget will be enough for 2004?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
From the article:
Debt-ridden media conglomerates are now considering sales of their music divisions...
Boy, wouldn't that be a fucking tragedy.
If you have a lazy imagination like I do, listen to the Final Fantasy 3 Victory Fanfare on the SNES page (search text for "Victory Fanfare") of the Videogame Music Archive.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
This is truly an excellent event. I log in to Slahdot every day only to see stories about my rights being eroded. Finally, there is some good news!
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
found here.
is "unconstitutional amendment" a paradox?
Possibly. For example, Most amendments to the U.S. Constitution need assent from three-fourths of the states, but changing the rules of election to the Senate may need unanimous assent from all states: "provided ... that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" (U.S. Const., Art. V).
The 17th Amendment, which provides for direct popular election to the U.S. Senate, may not be constitutional.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I have seen many good examples of conservative and libertarian/neo-liberal foes of copyright expansionism bolstering their ranks by drawing strong analogies between copyright expansionism and gun control. Many who are uneasy about file sharing are becoming even more uneasy about the prospect of supporting an intellectual cousin of gun control. And it makes sense to them, because file sharing does have legal applications and in order to stop it, the cure is tantamount to a scorched earth policy in regard to our software/hardware/IT/consumer electronics industries.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
We may still see some college kids get thrown in jail.
Laws are for people with no friends.
And since AG and Napster went down, any client audio/video sharing available for *nix does not have enough users or mass to go beyond top 40.
Aren't eDonkey and Gnutella ported to *n?x systems?
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://www.riaa.com/PR_story.cfm?id=633
Rosen on Streamcast Networks/Grokster Summary Judgment Decision
4/25/03
Hilary Rosen, Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA):
"We are pleased with the Court's affirmation that individual users are accountable for illegally uploading and downloading copyrighted works off of publicly accessible peer-to-peer networks. This is precisely the issue we have been seeking to focus the public's attention on, and yesterday's decision in the Verizon matter makes clear that individual infringers cannot expect to remain anonymous when they engage in this illegal activity.
"We also note that the District Court in the Grokster matter recognized that the Defendants 'may have intentionally structured their businesses to avoid secondary liability for copyright infringement, while benefitting financially from the illicit draw of their wares.'
"Businesses that intentionally facilitate massive piracy should not be able to evade responsibility for their actions. We disagree with the District Court's decision that these services are not liable for the massive illegal piracy that their systems encourage and we will immediately appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."
Likening a computer to an AK-47 is like.. wait.. it's likening a computer to an AK- 47. One is a piece of silicon that does logical analysis and the other is a fucking gun.
Actually, it's an understatement of what the RIAA thinks. They see a computer as a Weapon of Mass Infringement, something like an economic WMD against their profit line. And they'd reaaaaaaally like to send in the marines (lawyers) and DisaRM us. No, there's nothing wrong with my shift key.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's an ancient right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
You're talking about copyright.
Many others on Slashdot are talking about entry barriers other than copyright. One of the biggest issues is the limited availability of FM radio broadcasting licenses from the FCC so that somebody can compete against homogenized payola-driven Clear Channel corporate radio. Another issue is negotiating with retailers: Wal-Mart and Best Buy often don't want to deal with smaller labels. Possibly the only copyright-related reason that a few large firms control music distribution is that it is difficult for lesser-known songwriters to check their newly composed songs against the hundreds of thousands of published songs in order to discover accidental infringement before being hit with a lawsuit.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Man that is so pathetic.
This is so pathetic (and typical of alot of users on Slashdot).
A filesharing program gets cleared in court due to the fact that there actually ARE alot of legit ways and reasons to use one, and immediately the slashdot forum is filled up with lame posts along the line of "woohoo, open season on warez, most DVDrips when he dies wins"
Seriously, you don't give a fsck about the legit reasons at all.
Bunch of hippocrites.
I dare you to admit it openly wihout resorting to posting AC.
(English is not my first language, so if there are any grammatical or spelling errors you nitpicking ACs who has nothing interesting to say anyway can lay of the lameness)
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
The students the RIAA is suing are ones who wrote network search agents. One of them as a school project under an advisor.
Hopefully the judge in that case will look at the results of this case and throw those suits right the fuck out the window.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm as concerned about the nuetering of technology due to the whims of greedy corporations and cartels as the next /.'er. But (and I realize this may not be popular here), many of those users you mention are criminals in that they are illegally copying and distributing copyrighted works. And bear in mind they are criminals in a criminal sense that existed BEFORE DMCA, PATRIOT and any addendums to copyright terms. Frankly I'm as unhappy with the people who have ABUSED technology to the point that their misbehavior has brought everyone to the brink of crippled technology as I am in the companies that are proposing the crippling.
In other words, this problem started with the people who illegally swiped goodies using a peer to peer network, and hopefully with rulings like this it will end with those same people. Am I in favor of destroying the lives of college students engaged in such activities - absolutely not, the punishment should fit the crime (I don't think any individiual could ever "steal" $98M worth of music via peer to peer networks). But people who commit such crimes do need to be punished for them. That is the most correct way to deal with this issue, as long as copyright law is retained (which is a separate issue). The viability of the entertainment industry's current distribution and revenue models is also a separate issue - but it can not be used to justify criminal behavior. You can't justify stealing a Lamborghini because they've priced it out of your reach, and you can't justify illegally copying things because you can't afford the product either (yes I'm aware that theft and copyright infringement are different, but they bear enough similarities in this light to be used together for this discussion). In fact, engaging in such sophistry truly only serves to cloud all three separate issues.
If those using peer to peer networks for illegal activity are punished and discouraged from doing so, hopefully, peer to peer networks can be used (and publicized) for more legitimate, fruitful use (like distributing music which is not fettered by rampant copyright restrictions), and the stigma will revert to bad behavior, not "bad" technology. Simply put, those committing crimes should be punished accordingly, thereby avoiding everyone being saddled with the punishment (which this judgement avoids) - as it should have been from the outset. Shame on big entertainment for trying to make us CITIZENS slaves to their profit model. Shame on the copyright infringers for giving big entertainment a ready sham for coopting our technology to enforce the lock in.
can you kiss any more ass to gain karma, asshole?
I've read the court's opinion, and was quite surprised by what it said. If upheld, RIAA and MPAA will have NO LEGAL RECOURSE against decentralized file sharing intermediaries, under existing copyright law. MPAA and RIAA will have three choices:
1. Pursue end users (a very expensive tactic of limited value, other than as a scare tactic).
2. Incentivize end users to stop illeagally trading files, by offering reasonable alternatives (Hey, it worked with me. I'm a Rhapsody subscriber).
3. Pursue new legislation that specifically outlaws providing clients to services such as Napster, Kazaa. (of questionable effectiveness)
Despite some first amendment, and political obstacles, I think that the only reasonable business decision for the record and movie industries is option #3. Options 1 and 2 might provide some modest degree of mitigation to the erosion of industry revenues, but only option 3 has the potential to address the issue head on.
As much as I hate the notion of more regulation on this issue, I think that from a business perspective the RIAA and MPAA need to immediately beseige capital hill. Waiting for the appeal before doing so would be suicidal.
This means that we have to be ready to counter any such effort.
You fail spectacularly, pole smoker!!!
How can you "WOOT" when you should be licking your shit off my cock head after I finished pounding your cherry ass.
You FAIL faggot.
Failure, you leave me no choice but to fuck your ass like it was the 4th of july (you cannot convince me the founding fathers weren't a cabal of pillow biters)
EFF has the decision (1.4Mb PDF) online
:-/
And I have the decision on 1.44Mb floppy -- downloaded from Grokster
Good day for freedom, at any rate...
At risk of being modded redundant, but I had to do it!
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
They will go after the users... But how will they go after everyone? Isn't that discrimination if you only take a few, and leave the rest which are doing the same thing? Do you think they're going to take on millions of people? That's a lot of money...If you charge 58$ million or whatever it is for four college students, and multiply that by even a million....That's a lot of friggin money. (millions of millions!) I don't know about you, but if the government started arresting millions of people, or even slapping down huge and unreasonable fines on millions of people, I'd be quickly leaving the country...I don't want to live in a country that incarcerates everyone because they use the internet to download music... Maybe if this were a Puritan state I could understand it, but I thought we left that mentality in the ditch somewheres a long time ago.
The judge in this case said that under the current law, writing a software program to facilitate this behavior is not illegal.
He then subtly called on Congress to address the situation.
Which they will do. With the help of the RIAA/MPAA.
AND LIFE WILL SUCK. Because they really will go after authors of tools. Any tool that could possibly be used for filesharing. This will really be bad for free software......
You think the DMCA is bad? How about making it illegal to write software that DOESN'T PREVENT copyright infringement! That's what we have to look forward to, folks. You won't be able to take the moral high ground, it will be cut out from under you by Congress. Minding your own business will no longer be an option.
Only older FT clients use the supernode server; the latest Kazaa is totally decentralized. But this probably will have little effect on the ruling - Kazaa has in fact admitted to operating a root supernode server. Whether this matters at all is debatable.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
> they can't kill the makers of the weapon -- they will now turn their resources to the people pulling the trigger.
Sounds fair to me. First off, there's a reason why most companies don't go after petty theivery - the return to cost ratio is ridiculous. In every form of business there will be x amount of fraud because stopping that fraud just isn't worth the time or money. Hell, the software industry lives on fraud.
So what does this ruling mean for the little guy? Plenty. The RIAA can go after the real thieves, those who burn CDs by the hundreds and put them in cases with copied cover art and sell in many parts of the world - usually right in the open.
Most importantly, The RIAA can invest in a secure replacement for CD technology. Why the hell should my tax dollars go towards subsidizing their bad decision to go with the CD format? Sure at the time it was a good idea, but times change and business needs to adapt. Supporting the RIAA would be like having someone sue the police, the city, and everyone with a criminal record in their neighborhood because they are too cheap to buy door locks. The RIAA may not like it, but its a tech company now. Get cracking with a secure CD format, change your business plan, or eat up the cost. Suing eveyone in the world will accomplish squat.
I really hope they go after Joe and Jane RIAA-music sharer. The chill will send them into the arms of waiting indie labels with arguably much better music. I wonder how many thousands of people are forever off the RIAA/ClearChannel teat thanks to strong-armed tactics like these?
Dude, unless you leave the country and get new citizenship - yes they are "your government" still. Getting all sweaty about the powers that be does not liberate you from their rule.
ôó
I think a lot of Slashdot readers maybe didn't get a chance to use Audiogalaxy, so they don't realize just how superior to other file-sharing programs it was, and why.
This is an excellent, detailed article on its merits. I highly recommend it. But briefly, this is why I found it best:
A. It was webbrowser-based. The actual client ran by itself (and it was a wonderful little tool, non-obtrusive and efficient), but the search engine could be accessed from any webbrowser. You could add songs to your queue from a friend's house, for example. The system kept track of everything that was traded on Audiogalaxy, so rare tracks could be found whenever you searched for it, and it would just wait on your queue until someone started sharing it again.
B. Related to the above: you could find almost anything on the system. I would read about a cool song somewhere, and an hour or so later I could probably listen to it. I am interested in a huge variety of music (especially from outside the US), and it constantly had what I wanted. The variety was amazing.
C. It was convenient. Very few ads, the system was fast and responsive, the client was minimal. I usually used it while on a 56K connection, and it still worked well (certainly better than Napster, etc. ever had).
D. It had a gigantic userbase. The variety and scope of the music shared was amazing. It had a decent recommendation system. I tried out all sorts of new types/genres of music. The system made it all convenient. Audiogalaxy managed to massively expand my taste in music, and it seemed to do the same for all of my friends, too.
I know some other P2P apps are starting to get to where Audiogalaxy was more than two years ago. But they still have a long ways to go, and I am not convinced one of them will ever manage to achieve such a gigantic library of music. Audiogalaxy was, in many ways, truly the 'celestial jukebox' that we had all been waiting for.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
I'm wondering which one explains Slashdot.
Actually, all courts are required to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not just the Supreme Court. Any number of courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional but that case law only applies to their jurisdiction. In the case of the Supreme Court, the entire country is their jurisdiction, so their decisions have a much greater weight than some Federal Circuit Court Judge in LA.
Now is the time to trade LEGITIMATE unpirated files.
Let's show 'em that yes there's "significant non infriging use". Otherwise the Supremes will fuck us.
And, I'm not tralking about Diana Ross.
crybaby socialists that believe that there is nothing wrong with stealing.
On the other hand, CD's should not cost $15. A musical CD should be in the $9 price range. The cost for manufacturing a CD versus a cassette tape is insignificant. 10 years ago, there was a substantial price differential in the wholesale cost of making a cassette album versus a CD album. Today that doesn't exist.
Also, record companies no longer release 45's. Who in their right mind would want to buy a $15 CD when there is only 1 song that you like? CD singles never took off because record companies were charging $3.99 for a CD single.
The music companies are responsible for their plight. However, trading songs is still illegal, but file swapping exists because of the greediness of the record companies.
Somehow I don't think anybody's desire to be entertained for free (try a library card) really compares to an institutional limit on your liberties. If you think music and movies should be free, take the first step and make your own and start giving them away.
I'm just a bit frustrated that most of the debate on this subject comes from a position of convenience, rather than principle.
'Discrimination' would be if they went after only blue eyed people in an attempt primarily to discriminate against blue eyed people for whatever reason.
It's not discrimination to limit the scope of prosecution to a practical number of cases. And after a practical number of people have been 'made examples of' everybody else will fall in line.
..the network is Gnutella, the open-source nature of which effectively places it outside the control of any single entity.
Which is what they ought to be doing anyhow. Far better that they go after individual users who are violating their copyrights than that they try to have possession of legitimate knowledge and technology restricted from everyone but themselves.
eDonkey!
The most informative thing about this is the RIAA finally has their web site up again.
For an organization involved with technology, the RIAA is clueless about technolgy. They have had a comedy of errors keeping a website up. They are still using IIS, even though the RIAA web site is a main target for defacement.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Like Verizon I bet they will be subject to identifying users in the future.
Of most important slashdottings, this is one of the first without an intelligent summary somewhere in the comments. Can someone mod this comment up so that someone can provide a general summary of what this legal document says. Please dont waste your effort in engaging me in a mindless debate that there is no need for one, there are already 100 such other comments greater than +3 that are opionions or "funny".
This is 34 pages of legal mesh, so who can step up ?
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
Roxio should fire up the napster servers now.
speaking of "breaking the law", why is music even protected so long? how does this serve the public? is the law fair? or is it just another law shoved through by the corporations in the first place. why should music be protected longer than patents? music is more important than ideas? hell, lots of music is so bad it should be punishable by tar and feathering! run Hanson run! these lawsuits are nothing but bulls#it. i will never buy another CD... ever. the poor music industry got caught price fixing. i hope they go under. i hope they pay expensive lawyers and computer scientists selling snake oil that promises to "foil those bad bad copyright infringers". they just screw the artists anyway. in 10 years everyone will own a hard drive the size of a pack of cigarettes that'll have every song made since the beginning of time on it... technology, aint it a bitch? why even get MP3s online when you can use your tuner and just record off a strong FM station? how are they going to stop that? how RIAA? how bitch? who's your daddy? who? say it! SAY IT! I AM!!!! now go find your next Back Street Boyz you gravy sucking pigs!
It also happens that someone places a legit N-megabyte file on his web-page, but after this file becomes popular ISP disables the account. Without filesharing systems the file is lost. With them it can remain available forever.
P.S. And note how many game-related sites set up their own P2P systems in order to distribute demos, trailers and other heavyweight stuff.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
This is a slightly hollow victory. I've just read the judgement, and it seems that "Kazaa BV", who were also being prosecuted, went out of business and/or ceased defending the action, probably because they sold their license rights to Sharman Networld plc. Morpheus is now irrelevant, as they are part of the *truly* P2P network Gnutella.
However, Grokster were 'let off the hook' by the court mainly because they do nothing but license the FastTrack software from Kazaa (Sharman) and have *no* access to its source code (I didn't know this), and so could do nothing to help prevent copyright infringement by its use. Furthermore, they apparently no longer operate any root supernodes, and just use Kazaa's. Kazaa operate these root supernodes AND have access to the sourcecode for the client, which could (sigh) be used the cripple the product and use 1001 ways to try and identify a copyrighted work and prevent it from being shared. We could see a lawsuit against Sharman Networks in the future, and if Kazaa goes down, so does Grokster (which I think is a shame because FastTrack is a fantastic network design). Morpheus (or StreamCast) should no longer be considered in the same group; it's just a Gnutella client.
If they made the code opensource, and allowed public lists of supernodes to be published, then they'd have an unbreakable (as Gnutella) P2P network with a much better, more efficient design! Alas, I suspect that the kind of money they're making from ad revenues will prevent this, and ultimately they're more likely to go down the ultra-censorship route if forced to by the courts.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I totally agree... it's rather symptomatic in a sense... they are unable to embrace and antagonistic towards digital technology... this manifests in their inability to hire technical staff that can protect their shit.
Sony, roughly translated from the Japanese, means "corporate schizophrenia." It was just as true three years ago...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
--you mean that scientist or engineer working there to pull a samson option directly where he works? ya, I can buy that. He builds a great nuke, then flips the switch, kaboom, the whole plant and everyone connected with it goes buh bye. Bonus point for getting the financiers and local political junta goons at the same time. I'd call that guy a hero.
The concentration camp victims working in the slave factories in ww2 used to do that, a lot of von brauns V2's failed because they were sabotaged.
There's some evidence coming out now, it's still sketchy, but a lot of old ww2 vets are now at the point in their lives and don't care, they are spilling the beans about how the US transferred nuclear weapons tech on the sly to stalin during the war and through the "cold war". In public they "caught" spies like the rosenbergs, on the QT it was a scam. The cold war was worth buhzillions in profits when all is said and done. The military industrial complex is an INTERNATIONAL phenomenon, it has always gone across national boundaries. Wars are started at the top levels of industry and finance, been that way forever. Take nam, it wasn't a buncha blue collar farmers kids and inner city kids in the US and some rice farmers kids over there in nam who just magically decided one day they were "against" each other and needed a "war". But, people all over the planet keep getting faked out and go join up with some political faction, or get coerced into it, because "those guys over there" are "the bad guys".
Nope, around the world, want to see who the bad guys are, all you got to do is follow the war cash cow upstream. Wherever it ends, bingo, you got your true "perps" who cause all this misery. There's currently about 2 to 3 thousand top level planetary financiers and industrialists and politicians and controlled media propagandists who call all the shots. The rest are just order followers, sheep. Get rid of those top few thousand serious bad guys,all at the same time, well, it probably won't completely eliminate wars but makes a lot more sense than what we are doing now.
I'll even go further, and detail one place and group of globalist misery profiteering goons exactly, the so called "bilderburgers". It's a proven fact, the info is now out there in the wild to research, and it's not "tin foil hat" stuff, it's credible and real. There's some more, but as far as I know they are the largest and "gooniest" of the criminal war and political command and control gangs. Google will give ya tons of hits on them.
There, that snotty enough of a reply for you? It's distateful to me to have to deal with such immaturity.
./ers could be labeled so. The guy you responded to might've thought about what you said, but now he just thinks you're a jerk and he'd probably discount the most impeccable logic so long as it came from you.
Yeah, actually, that was just about snotty enough. You accuse the other guy of trolling, simply for his use of a bad analogy? Seriously, if that's all it took to troll, then about 99% of
Oh, and I'm not any kind of hater; you've actually been on my friends list for awhile. Just passing along some advice. Feel free to heed or ignore it at your discretion.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
The record industry once hunted down fan sites that distributed elevator music style MIDI files. These idiots know no bounds.
Laws are for people with no friends.
The California legislature is well known for its stance on personal freedoms and privacy, and its totally insane laws, and respective rulings designed to reduce, or eliminate them totally..
For them, the US Constitution is toilet paper.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
what, you thought it was over?
The RIAA and MPAA will continue to appeal and file suits until they get a judge they can work with...
C'mon, don't your know how the American "justice" system works by now?
Morons...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Well, yes - we are the users - and if the RIAA goes after the users, then I liken this to speeding.
Sucks for the guy who is being made an example of but meanwhile, millions more of us are cruising on by just trying to stay under the radar.