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".
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.
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.
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!
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
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 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.
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
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!
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?
The Supreme Court: Sony vs. Univeral - "The sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights."
Heh, I can't wait to see that fight.
RIAA lawyer: "Your honor, these records show that Microsoft knowingly aided and abetted.."
Bill Gates: "Shut your pie hole loser, or I'll beat you with this stack of hundred dollar bills."
RIAA lawyer: "Your honor, I object to this treatment!"
Judge: "I believe Mr. Gates told you to shut your pie hole counsel."
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".
Other cases that were handled by Judge Willson hint to the fact that he is one of the few liberal and pro-Internet (as in "in favor of freedom of individual Internet users") in the country.
"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."
No idea if those details made it into the courtroom or not
Rest assured, they did. I've read the amicus briefs on this case, and the many declarations. As they're public documents, I can make them available if anyone's interested.
geek. lawyer.
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.
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.
--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.
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
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.
"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
"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.
No, the ISP (Verizon) case is absolutely nothing like this one. The judge in this decision very clearly states that illegal copyright infringement is going on, just that it's not the responsibility of the software provider to police this. That's a good decision.
So whose responsibility is the illegal copying? The person doing the copying, of course! In other words, it's the ISP users who are being protected by Verizon that are really responsible for their actions, and should be responsible for their actions. This is also good.
So why is Verizon fighting this? The key issue in that case is that in order to compel the identity of the users, the RIAA is saying they can just say they need the info. No judicial oversight, no review, no nothing except RIAA saying "we need it." And that is fundamentally wrong. You're putting ISPs at the mercy of another private organization who can decide on whatever whim they want that they can violate the ISP users privacy.
So it's not an issue of copyrighted file sharing being "ok". These two cases address entirely separate issues, so shouldn't be confused!
And in neither of the two cases does anyone claim that sharing copyrighted files is ok.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
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.