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.

Comments

w00t!

[mgs1000]

Well, we got one win.

Score: Common Sense 1, RIAA/MPAA 50

Re:w00t!

[Dylan Zimmerman]

This sets a wonderful precedent for that nasty RIAA suit against the college students.

Now that people are finally admitting that car manufacturers aren't liable for every drunk driver, we should see a lot more wins against the RIAA member companies. Or, at least, we should see the RIAA start to go after the real 'pirates' instead of companies that write legitimately useful software.

Finally...

[phoebusQ]

someone in the judicial ranks has recognized the difference between a tool and what people choose to do with it.

Re:Finally...

[lionchild]

Indeed! Otherwise we'd need to be filing lawsuits against bullet manufacturers. I mean it is the bullet that kills, not really the gun, eh? I suppose this is that 'some day' we've all been dreaming about, when common sense comes to the foreground.

Re:Finally...

[Xerithane]

Look at the AK-47. Name a particularly good reason why you need a fully automatic (automagic) weapon. Having a firearm is enough, no?

Because I want to. Now, name a particularly good reason why I shouldn't. I'm trained in handling, marksmanship, and am not a felon.

THe problem is, everyone, everwhere see's computers and various technologies as AK-47's. No depth perception.

Uh, aside from having an extra comma, this doesn't make sense. 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.

Re:Finally...

[GlassHeart]

I shouldn't have to argue why I shouldn't have a gun any more than I should have to argue why I should have a computer or a car.

But you do have to argue. What you are arguing (quoted below) is that the gun is like a computer or a car, which you can own. Since they are not identical objects, you in fact have to argue that they are the same for our purposes.

I do no harm to innocents by owning a gun. My neighbors are not influenced by me owning a gun. I can protect my family better. I can protect myself better.

These are all common points, so let me offer a few points (not arguments) for consideration.

Sometimes society has to make blanket bans because it can't distinguish good people from bad people. For example, airports are full of restricted areas, although 99% of the people would not endanger an airplane. You probably won't argue for an absolute right to bring your gun everywhere (meeting the President, getting on a plane, etc) either. I imagine you accept the premise that your good intentions may not be reelvant in some cases determined by society.

Like I mentioned, society draws a line somewhere. Because it's a line somewhere in a continuum, it is necessarily arguable. That is, if we allow semi-automatic rifles, why not automatic rifles? Why not grenade launchers? (Conversely, if we ban guns, why not knives?) That line reflects majority thinking, may not always be sane, but is just as valid as any individual viewpoint. It's where society finds balance between collective comfort (if only psychological) and individual wants.

Point is, none of your reasons apply only to (say) an automatic rifle, but not to the next more powerful weapon. The better question is where you think the line should be, and why there and not anywhere else? If you can't find a more compelling argument for any other point in the continuum of weapons, then you need to accept that in some societies you can't have some kinds of weapons.

i wouldn't give a poo about this

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

becuase you KNOW they WILL appeal...

until i see a supreme court judgement, i'm not going to bother to celebrate.

Re:i wouldn't give a poo about this

[Columbo]

You are definitely correct that this will be appealed into oblivion. The good thing about the ruling, however, is that when it hits the higher courts, those higher courts will presumably read the reasoning the first judge used to reach his conclusions. That's a good thing because we will have a voice stating our position from within the judicial system. Moreover, that voice actually stands a prayer of being heard. This isn't the victory it would be had the supreme court handed down the decision, but it is a victory.

Re:i wouldn't give a poo about this

[JLester]

You are confusing civil law with criminal law. Either can appeal a civil case.

Jason

I would hardly celebrate...

[PipianJ]

The music industry will appeal. The music industry INTENDS to win, however much money they must spend, and however many appeals they must request.

It was an LA judge's decision

[tapin]

The biggest thing about the news, I think, is the fact that it was a victory in LA. Y'know, where they make movies and music and all that. The RIAA and MPAA probably just assumed that all of the money they're throwing around town would guarantee them a victory.

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.

This doesn't necessarily bode well for KaZaA

[crankyspice]

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?

Share some public domain stuff

[rossjudson]

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".

Re:Im just waiting...

[NanoGator]

"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.

Expect to see more lawsuits against file traders

[MarkLR]

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.

Man, another filesharing story...

[Cereal Box]

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.

Belay that w00t, at least for now

[Syncdata]

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.

Re:Belay that w00t, at least for now

[jdkincad]

In the case of the Michigan Tech student, at least, all he did was right a program to search what people had on the LAN.

Re:Belay that w00t, at least for now

[Ioldanach]

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.

The students were doing 2 things, in general. They'd written and were hosting a site which indexed all available files on the campus network, and they'd put files in publicly available directories on their servers.

The decision here reflects on the first, but not the second, count. The first count is merely an indexing service which would stand somewhere between this decision and napster. That is to say, they control the site and traffic but they have no safeguards for restricting usage.

They're still screwed on the second count, though. They were sharing files they did not have the copyright on, and thus were commiting copyright infringement.

You people are completely missing the point here

[MarkRH]

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.

Analysis of potential RIAA Response

[solman]

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.