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.
Score: Common Sense 1, RIAA/MPAA 50
someone in the judicial ranks has recognized the difference between a tool and what people choose to do with it.
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.
... 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!
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.
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.
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.
It's stunning, since it implies that gnutella is legal as well. And probably bittorrent.
You now have 4 p2p networks that are legal for trading files. Certainly a change from when Napster was in the same position.
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...
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.
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".
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
"Umm, the Verizon case isn't about whether or not file-sharing programs are illegal. Its about some people who committed copyright infringement, and the RIAA wants their names. This decision doesn't change anything for the Verizon case. "
It would mean that it's not Verizon's responsiblity to police their users. I'm not sure that this would apply in the Verizon case though. I guess it would mean, tough, that Verizon would be under no obligation to hand over user info to the RIAA just because they think he/she was distributing movies. They'd have to get a court order to get the info.
"Derp de derp."
"Microsoft won't do it until Apple releases theirs. Microsoft has to have something to copy from."
Then, five years later, a clone of it will appear on Linux and make headline news on Slashdot.
"Derp de derp."
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
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.
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."
The URL news.com gets redirected to news.com.com, but in reality it really is News.com. The title of the page is "CNET News.com," therefore "News.com" is the correct term. The com.com thing is really a marketing thing, you'll notice that Download.com (yes, that's it's name in the title and the images) also rediectes to download.com.com.
Not that it really matters, but if you're going to make a silly correction, make sure it is actually true.
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.
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.
So should Cable be sued too?
No, cable companies only broadcast one of two things:
1) Programming and movies which they own the rights to (i.e. Fox airs The Simpsons)
2) Programming which they have paid an exhorbitant fee to the license/copyright owners to allow rebroadcast of the material (HBO/Skinemax airing movies).
You then pay the cable companies, either directly (you get cable from AOL/Time-Warner, et.al) or indirectly (i.e. through a content provider such as DirectTV) for the programming.
As such, you have paid for the programming, just as you would pay for a CD, Tape, or DVD.
Therefore, whatever you want to do with this signal is fair use, subject to the terms of the contract you signed when the cable/satellite was installed (usually you may record it for personal viewing at a later date but you may not re-broadcast it publicly or make a profit in any way from it).
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
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.
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?
No, I doubt this will help Verizon one bit. In fact, it may be more useful against them that it is for them. In this decision, the judge cites the fact that the defendents (Streamcast & Grokster) do not have much control over the networks themselves, nor do the have the right or ability to simply remove someone from the network. In the case of Verizon, they do have the right and ability to disconnect someone. Its going to be a rather diffenet fight for Verizon since Verizon:
A) Knew of the infringent, the RIAA letter
B) Could have taken unilateral action to disconnect the infringing person. Disconnect the account.
C) Had the right to disconnect the infringing user. They can disconnect a user at will, its in the TOS.
D) Is likey to gain finanacially by allowing this type of action to continue, by the draw it will create. Free stuff and verizon will protect me, hell ya I'm there.
In the case of StreamCast/Grokster, the judge found that the defendents were not in a position, in which, B and C were applicable, therefore they could not be held liable for contributory or vicarious infringment.
I have to give the judge credit in this case, I doubt he was much of a computer specialist, but he seems to have grasped the underlying concepts rather firmly. He is very clear about the distiction between Napster's centralized network, with one lynchpin (Napster's Servers) and the Gnutella and FastTrack networks decentralized structure. If it wasn't for this, I think the headline would have been very different.
On a last note, this doesn't get Streamcast/Grokster completely off the hook yet. The judge made comment in the conclusion that, there might still be something in this that could be attacked later, but the current law does not provide a clear enough provision for it. This is, that the defendants may have specifically designed their systems to skirt the contributory infringment laws, while still planning to use the draw of copyright infringment to make money. But since there is nothing in the law that provides against it, he is not in a position to expand the breadth of copyright law to include it, that, he says, is a matter for congress to deal with.
So we might see this get brought up again, after the RIAA buys a law that specifically states that creating a de-centralized network, in order to use copyright infringment as a draw, but not be inside the bounds of contributory copyright infringment, is still within the bounds of contributory copyright infringment.
So, for now we will call this a victory for the P2P methodology, but the war isn't over.
And, of course, IANAL but I did at least RTFJ.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
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 ?
"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.
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
I think google is next.
SMB on a functional level is very similar to HTTP. Remember, only a fraction of the files indexed by his search engine were mp3s. (Like 30-40% if I remember right.)
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.
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.