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.

Comments

Court-ster

[CaptainAlbert]

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... :)

Re:Court-ster

[eidolons]

Something else to consider, perhaps more to the point in this case. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the Betamax case as a previous legal blueprint to follow in this case. They are thus looking for an indication that at least a marginal percentage of usage is legal or non-copyright infringement use.

So how about this: what if a major company decided to use a p2p network as it's MAJOR outlet for file distribution. Say, a shareware program or game demo. This would be proof that p2p file-sharing programs are not exclusively used as "stolen-goods" transfers, it is a mainstream sharing network for permissable transfers. That would blow these cases wide open, as the judges are just looking for a reason to refer to Betamax here.

I can't be...

[millahtime]

Do we have a Judge the Recording Execs can't pay off??

A funny thing happened today

[heironymouscoward]

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.

Difference with Napster is lack of central index

[blorg]

"Substantial non-infringing use" is finally being accepted as a defence, because as Grokster/Morpheus don't have a central index, (unlike Napster) they can't control what the users do with the software.

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.