Slashdot Mirror
Grokster Wins Big in Ninth Circuit
The Importance of writes "Grokster has won big in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the decision: [PDF]. It is a very strong decision, basically bringing the Sony-Betamax decision into the modern age. Of course, the decision does make it clear that if Congress wants to change the law, they can (cough*INDUCE Act*cough). Read the whole thing, the actual opinion is only 18 single-column pages. See also, commentary from Jason Schultz, Ernest Miller, Cory Doctorow, and Ed Felten. And don't forget to thank EFF."
Wasn't 9th the most overturned appeals court?
The owls are not what they seem
That their only approach now will to be going for the end users...
Oh Good!
The catch is more end-user lawsuits...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
This case is fairly obscure anyway from a mainstream media perspective, but Limbaugh, et. al. tend to take special pains to notice anything the 9th does, what with them thar fedruhl judges legislatin from da bench and attackin our Christian heritage and whatnot.
In any event, good for Grokster and good for the EFF. Nice for them to come out on the winning side of a case every great once in a while. Makes me feel like my money isn't going completely to waste. Cripes, when was the last time the EFF won a case? Reno v. ACLU?
First of all, the technology in question must be equally available for non-infringing uses. Napster wasn't. It was specifically designed for MP3 trading, and that's the big reason why it got smacked.
Secondly, the court decision clearly leaves the door open for Congress to take up the matter. They feel that the court is not able to make decisions about new tech (what they call 'Art') - that's Congress' job. Think they won't be listening to Big Music's dollars? You bet your ass they will.
Look at the constant extension of copyright in the case of interests like Disney. If Mickey Mouse's copyright gets extended any further they might as well just say, 'Infinity + 1' and be done with it.
Finally, this still won't prevent you from getting sued by the music and movie industries for sharing their material. All this does is postphone the final decision on PtoP. The question is whether or not Congress will limit the technology to non-infringing uses (almost impossible to do), or ban it altogether (more likely - it's easier).
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
From the wikipedia entry:0 03CircuitScorecard.pdf)
It is often called "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other. (Indeed, in 2003 it had the least reversal rate of any appeals court with more than five cases reviewed.[1] (http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/SemiFinalOT2
Amusingly, this particular court is a frequent target for confused US conservatives in spite of the fact that (again, quoting the Wikipedia entry) it's a strong supported of states' rights (even if the state is sometimes psychotically liberal, re: California)
"The court is also on the leading edge of federalism, recently refusing to enforce federal laws against homemade pornography (US v. McCoy), homemade firearms (US v. Stewart), and homegrown marijuana (Raich v. Ashcroft). The court reasoned that application of such laws exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, basing the decision on the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez."
"From the advent of the player piano, every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copyright owners, often resulting in federal litigation."
Get down with the catchy metaphor...I like it.
Is this normal style in opinions or is this rare?
not just that but it's the ninth, not exactly well known for ruling based on law...
No matter how much you obey the restrictions of the EULA, the licenser can -- at their whim -- decide to terminate your rights to the software.
BZZZZT! Wrong answer. If you agree to a contract, then both parties have to respect it. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have any purpose for EULAs in the first place.
I have to admit, that article was actually passable, once you got past the "the plaintiffs are...............the defendents are........" part, the initial statement wasn't too hard to read. It even opened with this little gem of an anecdote(pg 9): "From the advent of the player piano, every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copywrite owners, often resulting in federal litigation."
Better anecdote: If grokster causes people to download, and guns kill people, then spoons cause Americans to be fat.
EULA's are binding?
Tell ya what. Next time you buy a piece of software, open yer favorite hex editor and change the EULA to: "1. The company who produced this software package will pay 4 billion USD for installing this software package."
Save the binary and install the package. Now, since you didn't agree to said EULA when you purchaced the software package, you are only bound by the laws of copyright. Under those laws, you are allowed to modifiy that which you purchace, as long as you do not distribute. If the software company's no-longer-existing EULA is binding, then so is yours.
Think about that for a second.
--Demonspawn
But court decisions are generally very easy to read, I think mainly because judges don't have any financial incentive to obfuscate. They write what the ruling is in nice plain english.
Contrast with lawyers paid by the hour, and supposedly paid to do something the client can't do on their own. There you have an incentive to write in a manner beyond the comprehension of your average person. "What? You can't understand this? That's why you need to hire me."
Personal comment is also fairly common in judicial rulings, more so the higher up the chain you go, and a sense of humor is certainly not lost upon jurists. If you've ever had the opportunity to work in a "very serious environment" (e.g. surgical/emergency room, in a combat zone, air traffic control, mission critical system support, etc.) you'll find that the people who have worked there for a while don't behave very "seriously". They can't, because if they did so full time they'd go nuts. If you're never been to a Supreme Court hearing, you should try one - you'd be surprised how much ribbing the Justices do of the lawyers and each other along with the liberal application of witty sarcasm, even from the conservative members of the bench, despite the often quite serious cases being presented.
paintball
If only we could peer to peer money. Now that would be a new economic system!
Logic, macros, and more
The above SHOULD NOT be FLAME BAIT, If you follow the rulings of the various courts of appeal, the 9th circuit is ALWAYS on the cutting edge of things and OFTEN has rulings overturned. By the same token they also provide a really GOOD source of precident for future litigation. I really hope they put the responsibility with the people who deserve it, IF YOU DOWNLOAD MATERIAL you are not entitled to YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL, it should NOT be the one hosts it. I have an ftp server up so I can spool music to work, MP3's cannot reside on the systems, now I have a standard disclaimer but it is anonymous access, if someone goes there and gets all my music files, where does the fault reside ??? The one taking what they KNOW they are not authorized to have of the one making the files potentially available ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
But the Congress the finalized and passed the DMCA was Republican....
DMCA: Sponsored by Republican, Howard Coble, co-sponsored by Republicans Sonny & Mary Bono, Henry Hyde, Bill McCollum, Bill Paxon, Charles (Chip) Pickering; and Democrats Howard Berman, John Conyers, Barney Frank. (7 Republicans and 3 Democrats).
The sponsor, Republican Howard Coble's #1 supporting industry is TV/Movies/Music, having given him large chunks of money over the years leading up to the DMCA.
But thanks for trying to slam Clinton and blame him for things - we all know "It's Clinton's Fault!"
Orrin Hatch wants to destroy your computer in order to please his friends (read campaign contributors) in the recording and movie industry. This particular reactionary thought it might be a good idea for those who feel their copyright is being infringed by these decentralized perr-to-peer networks ought to be legally able to write virus code that will destroy users' computers.
On the other hand there's Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York who found that many artists and writers were not being paid royalties because record companies had failed to maintain contact with the performers and had stopped making required payments.
I have a very good friend who is a CPA and worked as an auditor for a large CPA firm here in NYC. One particularly famous rock band from Long Island (long since broken up) had a member not too long ago who ran into a rather obnoxious member of the press (read papparizzi) who shoved him, then sued him when he struck back (he only hit him because he was trying to recover hos balance, honest).
The band member contacted their lawyer, who he had not spoken to for years due to the band's breakup. The lawyer told him that it would cost $5,000 to represent him and when could he expect the check?
The former rocker's answer was, "But I'm broke!
The lawyer rummaged around a bit and pulled out a standard contract which has a paragraph indicating that the band may audit the record company's books at any time and that the expense must be borne by the recording company if the band felt that there was any malfeasance.
The lawyer then asked the band member when the last time he had received a royalty check was.
The band member recalled the last one came in (and was all-too quickly spent) seven years before.
The lawyer suggested that the band had a strong case for malfeasance, as he, himself had seen someone purchase a CD of the band's music himself within the last year. My friend (the CPA) was hired and they found that the company typically under-reported album (later CD) sales when the band was active by 20%. Additionally, the recording company was on the hook for seven years of pretty good sales of the CDs made by the band as well as one anthology that the record company had produced that the band didn't know about.
This gave the band enough cash to put a little away in investments and also to initiate a comeback tour that was quite successful in both raising quick cash from venues as well as increasing their CD sales.
The RIAA says that the sales of CDs are dropping and that it's caused by peer networks. The movie industry said that fewer people were going to the movies and were purchasing videos and laserdiscs (later DVDs) because of home copying and later peer networks. I just cannot believe these theves.
Could the real reason why they say their sales are down be because they are underreporting sales in order to screw artists? Or is it that the current distribution model prevents anything compelling to the audience from ever being released? I wonder as I watch all of the caterwauling about copyright. Could it be that the only revenue stream they can come up with is through litigation instead of developing and releasing compelling content?
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Save the binary and install the package. Now, since you didn't agree to said EULA when you purchaced the software package, you are only bound by the laws of copyright. Under those laws, you are allowed to modifiy that which you purchace, as long as you do not distribute. If the software company's no-longer-existing EULA is binding, then so is yours.
Common contract law holds that each revison of a contract is a new offer. Your revision of the contract would not be binding on [company] unless they agreed to it. In fact, there would be no contract at all until they do agree, since by drafting a new agreement you obviously did not agree to the extant EULA.
Which means that you'd be guilty of fraud, and potentially liable for a significant sum--possibly the maximum ammount of damages [company] could have suffered from your fraud--$4 bililon.
I, for one, would rather see the day where the RIAA/MPAA are long gone and some such business model exists that removes publishers from the content distrobution system completly since they are primarily the problem. It'd be really neat if you could buy music in high quality files for $.10 a pop or buy access to internet radio streams for like $10 a month. Sure, there'll still be piracy, but at least the artists will be getting a good deal of money for their music, and you can include extra's on a website or something.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I am the lead singer for one of those bands you mention. In the band's press packet I'm quoted as saying, "If you have the money, buy our CD. If you don't have the money, download the CD. The music and its message are more important than the money."
Don't be fooled by the RIAA. The average yearly take home pay of a band that makes a gold album (sells 100,000 copies) is around $200,000. Divided down that means that in a 4 person band everyone makes about $50,000 a year. What happens to the other $1,600,000 - $1,800,000 that their album makes? Part of it is spent on publicity and distribution, but way to much is spent on corporate fat cats.
A little over a hundred years ago there was no such thing as a musician whose songs made him/her rich. Back in those days, it was the music and the message that mattered. Please, support your local musicians, but also do everything in your power to help bring down this organization who enslaves and manipulates our music industry and destroys promising musicians who won't 'play ball'.
Always remember that you will put more money in the musician's pocket by attending a concert than you will buying their albums.
You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush