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".
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.
The music industry will appeal. The music industry INTENDS to win, however much money they must spend, and however many appeals they must request.
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 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."
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.
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.
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.
But where are they going to get the money from seeing as how music piracy is constantly eroding their already thin profit margins?
"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."
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.