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.
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
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."
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."
"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."
I don't think the point had to do with distribution, it had to do with the legality of using a VCR. There's plenty of legal things you can do with a VCR even though it can be used to violate copyrights.
As for the VCR being a tool for distribution, it kind of matters how you look at it. Somebody could tape Star Wars off the TV and resell that movie to make money. They'd be encouraged to do so as long as they're making money. With the internet and P2P, there's no real satisfaction towards sharing because you get no money out of it. It's just part of the network. It kinda balances out when you think of it that way. The distribution of it's not as bad as the making money from it. Then there's the whole matter of whether or not the other side is downloading it legally or not. (I.e. what if I'm downloading an Mp3 from a CD I have?)
" VCRs on the other hand, often used for simply watching something at a different time..."
That's part of it, but there's also the archival part of it. That's what got Jack Valenti all upset. He was worried about people making libraries of tapes and then selling them to each other. Time shifting is no longer time shifting when you mean for the tape to permenantly store that content. Then you really have made a copy, and since you didn't pay for it you're in trouble.
Stupid, iddnt it? Good thing the courts ruled in consumer's favor over it.
"Derp de derp."
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.
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.
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
"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
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.
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.