Slashdot Mirror
Grokster/Morpheus Hearing Recap
TrentC writes "An article in The Mercury News reports that Senior Judge John T. Noonan, hearing arguments in the Morpheus/Grokster case (yes, it's still going!), scolded one of the attorneys for the recording industry for 'using abusive language' in referring to P2P networks as 'trafficking in pirated goods'. Noonan also questioned, in response to a claim that a study showed that 90% of the 750 million files shared on Morpheus was illegally distributed files, if the other 10% -- consisting of public-domain works, recordings of public performances and works where the copyright holders have granted permission -- consisted of enough non-infringing use to meet the criteria set forth in the famous Betamax decision. Maybe 2004 will be 'The Year The Courts Get It Right'?" We mentioned this hearing a few days ago. The EFF has audio of the hearing and case documents available. Since this case will likely decide the general legality of P2P services, it could be quite important.
I have an idea. Well, I kinda stole it from something I read at Operation Clambake. Many of Scientology's "secret" documents are now available to anyone for free, because they have been subpoenaed during a lawsuit.
:)
So... perhaps one could run a filesharing operation based on the fact that documents presented as evidence in court become a matter of public record? Just get the files you were allegedly sharing to be part of the discovery, and bingo! Anyone in the world can download them!
This of course has the advantage that the courts can't shut it down or even declare it illegal...
These sigs are more interesting tha
Mandrake ISO's and a lot of other stuff is on Bittorrent P2P so COUNT THAT RIAA IDIOTS!!!
Enter it as evidence by sending a letter to the judge in the case and BOTH lawyers!
Do we have a Judge the Recording Execs can't pay off??
Evolution or ID?
We organize the occasional party in our garage. The local equivalent of the RIAA (the Belgian SABAM) came knocking and asking for their cut. They were very reasonable, a clean 15% of the gross. I asked whether this covered live groups too. Oh yes. How about artists that are not members of the SABAM? Oh yes. But we're willing to make you a gooood price. At which point I realize that this is just the local mob.
It really makes me wonder... when you cannot stand up on stage and play your guitar for a public without having to fill-in a form and pay protection money. I don't see P2P ever being legit in such a world.
Go on, mod me -1 irrelevant, but this was the first time I saw a music industry enforcer in action and I was quite impressed.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Swarm the oral argument from here:
20040203_oral_arg.mp3
Should work if you have a magnet handler like LimeWire or Kazaa installed.
smd4985
I just love the bit where the recording industry present their "90% of the 750 million files" study, and the judge whips back with, well, 75 million files is a lot, isn't it? A few more legitimate uses like this one would do a lot to push the point home.
Why do they even bother anymore?
It's like trademark/copyright/surmark protection (one of those things at least..). To justify in a court of law, you have to vigorously defend your property, etc. Sure, we all know it's a waste, but they keep their legal muscle by flexing their legal muscle.
No abut the point is does tht 90% include songs that RIAA added themselves but are fake. That can jack up the percent.
You completely miss the point of the lawsuit. The point isn't that people can share files. Despite the biased crap you read on slashdot, the RIAA does know that software companies can't be held responsible for the uninitentional use of their products. The distinction, however, is that these networks are designed specifically with the intent to facilitate copyright infringement. Or atleast, so goes the RIAA's argument.
This reminds me of a problem from my Micro theory class:
Now the question really wanted you to realise that you can change the supply and demand curves to get the same results, but nevermind that.In both examples we are comparing a measurement that doesn't have the relationship it at first seems to.
They, in fact, have the same rather different relationship.
They are the upper bounds of the equations, but nothing 'deeper' than that.
What better way to show to the judge a perfectly acceptable legitmate usage of P2P than posting the oral arguments on a P2P system.
Caution: Contents under pressure
This is just beautiful. A judge finally recognizes the true nature of the situation. Their rights to control & restrict certain I.P. are unnatural and statutory. The limitations placed on citizens are enacted in law and are specific. RIAA et.al. are running around calling everyone a thief for doing what comes easily and naturally as a progression of technology, when infact this is just not against the law. An activity should not automatically be defined as criminal just because a bunch of incumbent monopolists don't like the consequences and the judge is right to tell this lawyer to cut the invective.
I dont know about Phish, but I do know that DMB pressed for and received such permissions during negotiations with their label before signing with them. They had been playing at various clubs independently before making it big, and gained significant popularity from allowing fans to make their own recordings (tape or video) of live shows. They wanted that to continue after going with RCA, and got it. Fans attending a DMB concert are permitted to record the show and do pretty much whatever they want with the recording. Result is a large black-market of DMB material, now mostly on P2P networks. Check out some independent CD shops, you'll probably see some "albums" of DMB that were not published by RCA.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I don't get why P2P is under fire.
P2P is a perfectly legal technology, its just a network protocol! When these courts and RIAA talk about P2P, they speak as if P2P itself is illegal. No.. its just the distribution of "illegal goods" that is illegal, not the P2P network itself.
One gripe I have is that the courts and RIAA seem to completely disregard the Copyright Act of 1976. According to that act, redistribution of files were ok as long as it was under "Fair Use". The "Fair Use" guidelines evaaluated the "infringement" upon 4 categories:
1 - Purpose: Is the proposed copying for commercial or non-profit use?
2 - Nature: Is the copied work factual, or creative?
3 - Relative amount: How much of the original work is being copied?
4 - Effect: What is the market effect of the alleged copying?
For criteria 1, 2, and 3, we can already allege that mp3 trading on P2P networks is "Fair use". As for #4, the RIAA claims that they're losing $1 billion per year in revenue since P2P filesharing increased starting in 1999. What they don't tell you, is that the number of new records released by the RIAA fell sharply after 1999. How can they expect to make the same amount of revenue while cutting the number of new releases? Their logic defies me.
I hope that this court hearing goes well, for P2P's sake. P2P networks have a lot more use and purpose than just mp3 sharing, and I'd hate to see network after network being shot down by the RIAA and the courts.
Actually, the 9th Circuit has some rather astute judges. One is Alex Kozinski - an unofficial website of him is here - it lists some of his writings. One is Real nerds don't buy computers. They make them. Apparently, he is also a gaming reviewer.