Slashdot Mirror
The Law and P2P
Anonymous Coward writes "Here's some interesting legal commentary on the continuing saga of copyright enforcement and Apple's attempt at a constructive approach."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sorry, no links.
Why Grokster and Morpheus Won, Why Napster Lost, and What the Future of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Looks Like Now
By CHRIS SPRIGMAN
----
Thursday, May. 08, 2003
On April 25, in M-G-M v. Grokster, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a group of movie studios and record companies against Grokster and Morpheus. (Grokster and Morpheus are peer-to-peer services that enable users to share copyrighted music, movies, and other content over the Internet without paying a dime to the copyright owners.)
Many observers were surprised. They had assumed that Grokster and Morpheus would - like Napster in A&M Records v. Napster - be shut down for facilitating individual file sharers' copyright infringement. But Judge Wilson, after carefully examining the underlying technology, found that though users' infringement was occurring, Grokster and Morpheus were not contributing to or authorizing it. Thus, they could not be held liable.
The decision is obviously bad news for Hollywood studios and record companies. If it is upheld on appeal, they will continue to face wide-scale infringement of their copyrights.
If the decision is indeed upheld on appeal, will that be good news for consumers? That is a more complicated question. The answer depends heavily on Hollywood's reaction. Will it continue its battle on other fronts - focusing perhaps not on the services, but on their users? Or will it, instead, launch new strategies to take advantage of the powerful business opportunities that peer-to-peer might provide?
Comparing and Contrasting Grokster, Morpheus, and Napster
To see what is likely to occur in the future, it's helpful first to take a closer look at the differences between Grokster, Morpheus, and Napster.
First, Grokster. It offers for download a branded version of software owned by Sharman Networks, a company incorporated in Vanuatu - a remote Pacific island chain that markets itself as protecting corporate secrecy.
When a user boots the software, his computer is directed to sign on to a "root supernode" (a server owned by Sharman), which then directs the user to a "local supernode." The "local supernode" is some user's computer, which has been temporarily designated to route file-sharing requests among a large number of other users. (A particular user's computer may function as a local supernode one day but not the next; the process is largely invisible to the user).
Suppose a Grokster user requests a certain file - it could be a song, a movie clip, a video game, or an e-book. His search request is relayed among a large number of local supernodes and on to individual users. Once the requested file is found, it is transferred directly between the users.
Now let's look at Morpheus. Its software is based on the Gnutella peer-to-peer platform, built from "open source" code. Morpheus users connect to the Gnutella network by contacting another user who is already connected. (This initial connection is usually made by linking to a computer on the network that maintains a constantly changing list of IP addresses for certain currently active nodes.)
The Gnutella network is a "pure" peer-to-peer network - composed of users running Gnutella-compatible software such as LimeWire, BearShare and Shareaza. It does not use supernodes. Instead, user search requests are passed from user to user in the network until the requested file is found. The file is then transferred directly between the two users.
So what's the difference between Grokster and Morpheus, on one hand, and Napster, on the other? It is this: when Grokster and Morpheus users search for and receive digital files, they do so without information being relayed to or by any computer owned or controlled by Grokster or Morpheus. Thus, as the district court noted, if Grokster or Morpheus shut down, their users could continue to share files with little or no disruption.
In contrast, Napster users relayed se
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
The distributedness was really the clencher though. Basically, the opinion states that Morpheus and Grokster had no ability to prevent copyrighted files from being shared due to the nature of the network. This, of course, requires that there were significant other uses than copyright infringement.
-Alison
While the Napster decision may have rested on that (didn't read the decision), that wouldn't qualify as a difference between Napster and Grokster/Morpheus. Because Napster was client-server as opposed to true P2P, Napster as a company was found to know about and also to be able to prevent copyright infringement. Since they could've done something, and since shutting them down stopped the problem, they were rightly (IMHO) held liable.
Grokster/Morpheus, OTOH, because they are pure P2P, are more like copy machines. They have substantial non-infringing uses and there is no way for the manufacturer to know whether a user is copying an item in violation of a copyright.
If, for example, record companies included some kind of encryption in their files that would prevent them from being played without some kind of key, and if Grokster/Morpheus included in their software some ability to strip out that encryption, then Grokster/Morpheus would be violating the DMCA, and might also be held liable for copyright infringement.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
Read the article: "Apple has announced that it is adding additional music to its library, and will introduce a version of its service for Windows machines by year-end."
Did you RTFA? If you had, you would have noted the "Compare and Contrast" nature. For brevity's sake:
.2 * .04 = 40,000,000
Compare =({"music", "file-sharing"});
Contrast = ({"p2p", "client-server", "free/$.99"});
It also compared them to other RIAA sanctioned online music systems that are failing miserably because of their price structure. The fact that the article finishes with a very viable (IMO) business model that would not only increase the distribution and profits for the MPAA and RIAA backers, but also lower the price for consumers is a welcome change from the rampant "RIAA BAD! MPAA BAAAAAD!" arguments I see.
The article is a how-to for both sides. It points out the flaws of failed file sharing systems as well as what the current ones are doing right (and why the corporate strongmen hate them for it). It also looks at the other side as to why the corporate anti-piracy measures and their on-line distribution methods are both failing and why Apple sold 1,000,000 songs in it's first week.
From the article, only apple users can use their service. Apple has 4% of the computer market. I'd guess about 20% of the world is on the net. 5,000,000,000 people on the planet. This leads to:
5,000,000,000 *
At 1 million songs, that's 1 song for every 40 MAC users. Now consider that MACs have a heavy niche in primary and secondary education facilities where kids under the age of 18 can't use the service or in college computer labs where the users can't keep the songs or play them at their fancy (at least not like a home computer). All in all, the overwhelming early success of MACs new service shows that at a reasonable price, people ARE willing to pay for music online, but only if it is quality sounding, fairly priced, and their's to own after purchase.
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
It isn't mentioned in the article, but iTunes now has peer to peer streaming of music. You can share your library or specific playlists and let people access those lists over the internet or LAN (using Rendezvous) and choose songs to play. This feature effects me more than does the music store, and I think it has lot's of cool implications for more legal music sharing.
in a couple of ways, but one specifically - the author states that Gnutella does not use supernodes. in fact Ultrapeers (the gnutella term for supernodes) have been on gnutella for quite some time. there weren't as effective as hoped, but that was because of several bad iterations of implementations. things are getting better - check out any respectable (BearShare, LimeWire) gnutella servent and you'll see.
smd4985
The RIAA might just let the cops do it for them.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
...regarding eMusic. In the article, he implies that eMusic's subscription model requires you to continue paying the monthly fee, otherwise your previously downloaded songs stop working.
This is not true. eMusic's files are straight MP3s, with no DRM encumbrances. They do require you to sign up for a minimum 1-year commitment, but after that year you are free to cancel, and all the files you downloaded will continue to work just fine.
No offence, but your phrasing STINKS.
.. And a matter of fact, it protected under law...
Downloading music isn't illegal.
Downloading movies isn't illegal.
Doing either of the above in breach of copyright law IS illegal.
Blanket statements such as: "Downloading music is illegal" are misleading and inaccurate.
On to your other points.
Fair use is and has been eroding. The fact that you can't buy your Inu Yasha DVDs straight from Japan and play them on your DVD player is a perfect example of this. Modify your dvd player to play discs from other regions? Face years in Jail!
I'm all for fair play-- That is why it is my intention to screw those who screw me in equal measure.
How do you feel about price fixing? I don't believe -for a moment- that I'll be getting back my fair share of money from their activities.
IMHO, what they are suffering from now is what happens when you act the part of the big bully- People don't invite you to the party, and work around you.
There is a HUGE difference between illegal and wrong. You seem to be making the assertion that illegal==wrong. *BUZZZZ* AAhh, you're a loser at the game of morality!
Since when does the law==justice==right/wrong?
The law is an approximation of a justice system. It isn't even arguably the best we can do!!
Do you condone slavery? You DO know that people were allowed to -own- people not too many years ago, right?
Keep in mind that the RIAA isn't really in the business of producing music. Music has never been a way to make money (for the majority of people who play/produce it throughout history)... The RIAA is in the business of making STARS. Celebrities.. i.e. trademarks, -are- a good way of making money. The music is incidental (And if you're going to argue that it isn't, what is the purpose of a for-profit corporation? )