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."
Holy fucking shit people. There has to be some kind of a catch. Common sense just doesn't *win* like this. There has to be something wrong.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Wasn't 9th the most overturned appeals court?
The owls are not what they seem
Notice that the judge also spoke in support of the Betamax decision!!! Take that Hatch!!!!
Do you think that this sends a strong statment to Congress? Does this reverse the Napster ruling?
Netcraft confirms it: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not dying.
Trolling is a art,
HAHA you said 'read the whole thing' LOL
Like that'll ever happen on slashdot...
Orrin Hatch's campaign contributions just grew by hundredfold.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
I've noticed that the tech story summaries are always devoid of any explanatory sentences... just a bunch of tech-talk. Granted that a huge majority of /. readers are techies, but learning to put things in simpler non-tech terms would help commoners understand these news stories.
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..."
Wikipedia sez: Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (Docket Number: 81-1687), is also known as the Betamax case. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for home use is considered fair use, and that the manufacture of devices, such as Betamax or VCRs, to facilitate that is legal. Arguments were presented on January 18, 1983, and re-presented on October 3, 1983. The decision was announced on January 17, 1984. [source]
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
It's only a matter of time until companies bribes lobby for a new law.
Reasons for this new law:
- companies suffer from bad business models
- terrorists use P2P to communicate
- terrorists coordinate their attacks with P2P
- corrupt politicans
- its a communist thing to share things
- WMD (This time for real)
Think about it!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I, for one, welcome our new copyright infringing, ip thieving, file-sharing, socialist, everyone-share-and-share alike overlords. I guess the RIAA bribe, I mean campaign contribution, didn't make it through on time.
Sony v. Universal Studios "The Betamax Case" was a huge legal victory for fair use, stating devices that could be used for piracy, are not illegal, so long as their not universally used for piracy. If it went the other way, the VCR/Betamax/Ipod is as bad as a lockpick or crowbar. http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_de cision.php
It's April 1st dude.
Wait, no it's no. WTF? Crap, it's the end of the world, run for your lives!
So the judge ruling in favor of the p2p networking has HUGE implications. This is a federal appeals court, the last arena in the judicial branch where the record companies can attempt to bully around distributers. So basically, this means: P2P file sharing isn't inherently illegal! This is the equivalent of the sony betamax decision that is discussed a few posts ahead of your comment. Because P2P isn't soley for illegal file sharing, P2P networks are not illegal. Joy! oh JOY!
From the wikipedia entry: 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...
It looks like the Wikipedia article that you referenced is one of the most overturned articles in Wikipedia! This is one of those controversial articles that is edited back and forth over and over again by people with opposing viewpoints.
Any true Conservative should have no problem with this decision. This is a perfect example of a party asking a court to create new law and the court refusing. There is binding precedent mandating this outcome and the court properly came to this decision. Now, there still remains the question whether Limbaugh is a true Conservative, but I'll leave that to others to fight over.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
The decision PDF explains everything, if you care to read it carefully: Napster was pretty much sued out of existence because the judge decided that they could stop users from trading pirated mp3s, but didn't do enough to stop them. Today's decision says that Grokster does not have the ability of stopping anybody from sharing pirated mp3s, so they cannot be liable for anything
a. home recording of television programs under certain circumstances is considered "fair use" and is therefore legal, and
b. that the manufacturer(Sony) of devices for this legal use could not be held liable for individuals using their product for illegal uses.(copyright infringement)
(Very abbreviated, but that's the gist.)
The EFF has been doing fairly well in the DeCSS case -- DVD-CCA vs. Bunner. The court hasn't given them a slam-dunk, but the EFF has been whittling away slowly and surely against the DVD-CCA's baseless claims of trade secret "misappropriation" and "improper" reverse-engineering.
DVD-CCA has claimed they have since obtained a patent on CSS, so they may attempt to enjoin distribution that way, but it looks fairly clear that their trade secret suit is going to ultimately fail. Too bad it took the court four years to figure it out.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
"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?
imagine that this will go largely uncommented upon by the conservative community. It'd upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them. They won't like it, but they won't be able to say anything about it.
Or it's possible that conservatives might actually support this ruling. You know, the whole individual freedom and limited government thing. (Which I freely admit the current administration has shown little respect for).
Cripes, when was the last time the EFF won a case? Reno v. ACLU?
Sklyarov mostly won, so that might count.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
-conservative commentators hate the 9th circuit: agreed, the 9th circuit is easily the most liberal bench in the nation, thus it makes sense that conservatives would hate them.
-they (conservatives) would love to jump on this decision as more proof of how 'out of touch' the 9th circuit is: disagree I've yet to hear a conservative pundit blast the 9th circuit just randomly... the criticism is usually associated with a specific (or collection of) rulings. Thus your leap that conservatives would attack the ruling simply because of its source is a bit of a stretch.
-but somehow they must restrain from criticising the 9th, because "upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them": strongly disagree You think that the movie/music/entertainment industry supports the conservatives in this country? try again They (the industry that you claim supports conservatives) give twice as much to the Democrats as to the Republicans. And look at the list of top 20 recipients. 3 Republicans, 17 Dems. If they weren't hedging their bets and giving to both Bush and Kerry, the total dolar figure would be even further skewed toward the Democrats.
Otherwise, nice attempt to slander the views of those you disagree with...
Oh,... and bonus points for this display of maturity:
what with them thar fedruhl judges legislatin from da bench and attackin our Christian heritage and whatnot
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
On one hand, this could seriously increase the pressure on Congress to pass an INDUCE-style bill to rip the heart out of P2P programs - something that a lot of Democrats and Republicans are eager to do...
- Pedophiles use P2P to propogate child pornography
If I hear one more argument about how my rights have to be curtailed For The Sake of the Children because some fringe element of society abuses those rights, I'll vomit.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
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.
If you don't think that could happen, consider that there are sixty million peer-to-peer network users in the US, more people than voted for George Bush in 2000. The problem is then how to get all the p2p users to become politically active.
Find out how in Change the Law, which explores the history of copyright law in the US and suggests several specific steps you can take to bring about much needed copyright reform. The steps range from speaking out to practicing civil disobedience.
If you feel as I do that more people need to read what I wrote in my article, you can help by linking to it from your own web site, web log, or from message boards.
Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The EFF is your "freedom to innovate" insurance policy. When you need to argue "Constitutional Rights aren't just the law, they're good ideas. Technological developments aren't just my job, they're a good idea" and you just don't have the time, money or the right words to say it right, the EFF says it for you, and says it very well.
When the MP/RI/XXAA / DMCA takedown letter arrives, 98% of other lawyers or civil rights groups are just going to hear "I work in technobabble, and now I'm being sued for neutrino transducer violations because of warp field coil incompatibility with carnivore but it really is a 4th amendment issue because of eiozh bhpaceog phshzt!..." when you call them up.
When you call the EFF up with your 'intersection of technology with legal rights' legal problem, the EFF will actually understand the issue and will want to help you. And, if they can afford to help you they will- but for that they need money. That means donations ahead of time. That's why you should support the EFF now. $2/week gets you the spiffy hat, or $2.09 /month the nifty bumpersticker AND 1st Amendment Rights carried into Cyberspace. Ask for 'Short' instead of Venti once in a while: you know you aren't supposed to have your caffeine all at once anyways. Or just drink regular coffee with cream and a little splenda. Not only do you save $, you'll lose #s (weight, not octothorpes). Protected rights & a smaller waistline: $2/week, $2/month. Best.Insurance.Ever.
Full Disclosure: I've met many of the EFF's staff, so I know how dedicated they are. Their staff attorneys aren't making much more than paralegals might make at the big corporate law firms. They're the not-profit, and We profit from their existance (are you listening- any encryption exporting companies? this includes You). So donate!
Because you, being a liberal, like the decision, you automatically assume that conservatives will not. However while some issues draw lines strongly along partisan lines (abortion, death penalty, religious freedom, etc.), others, like copyright law or space exploration have no particular "liberal" or "conservative" stance. People weigh in more or less independently of party affiliation. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, gets it wrong on copyright, but then so did Bill Clinton when he signed the DMCA and Mickey Mouse Act. Likewise someone advocating IP reform might be equally likely to come from either party. One party, as you point out, has been accused of being "in favor of the corporations that support them", the other is known for being cozy with Hollywood, and therefore the MPAA.
So, nice try, but there is nothing anti-conservative about this ruling. In fact, being such a conservative, I applaud the decision. After all, the argument EFF presented here is the same one conservatives have been making for years in the gun debate: this technology has lots of legitimate uses so don't blame the maker because some people are using it to do illegal things.
What musicians need to do is find ways to use these systems to sell product, and from the judgement it seems some are already doing just that.
Does anyone here have personal experience of using the systems in this way that they can share?
Squirrel!
Thought I would plug these guys. http://furthurnet.org/ Great place, especially if you're into jambands-- but it's all live music from bands with taper-friendly policies. They're very anal about making sure no copyright violating material goes out on the network.
It's exactly what artists and the EFF have been saying all along.
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.