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."

Comments

WOW

[illuminatedwax]

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

Re:WOW

[Sneftel]

The catch is that this is a court of appeals. There's no way that the Supreme Court will deny the inevitable certiorari petition that the labels will be filing, which means that today's decision will quickly become moot. The court of appeals is not the appropriate venue to decide a point of law of this magnitude, and it's not going to.

Re:WOW

[Aneurysm9]

Would you please explain to me why "the most activist" appellate court just issued a highly restrained opinion refusing to expand the scope of contributory and vicarious infringement? If the 9th Circuit were truly activist they would have caved in to the demands of MGM and the others and issued a ruling inconsistent with present statuory law, creating new positive law from the bench. This court is not activist, it is merely more liberal than many courts, just as the 4th Circuit is more conservative than most. Disagreement with the opinion is not an adequate basis for labeling a court "activist."

Re:WOW

[Shadowlion]

There has to be some kind of a catch.

The biggest catch is that the decision explicitly notes that Congress has the ability to render the decision moot by passing more restrictive copyright legislation (e.g., the INDUCE act).

So even in the "best case" scenario for the companies, where this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and is affirmed, all Congress has to do is pass the INDUCE act. The decision is overturned, Grokster and company get new lawsuits filed against them, and given how ridiculously broad the INDUCE act is, they will almost certainly lose.

There's your catch.

Re:WOW

[Jason Earl]

Good. People distributing copyrighted material without permission of the owners are breaking the law. These distributors are the folks that should end up in court, not the folks writing software with plenty of legal uses. I would much rather have millions of end user lawsuits than laws telling me what kind of software can be written. If Grokster would have lost then every hacker that had ever worked on a piece of software that copied bits (from cp to ftpd) could have been liable for someone else's bad actions.

Personally I hope that the RIAA is successful in shutting down music file swapping. I can get along without a free copy of the newest Brittney Spears song, but I couldn't live with the type of Internet that the RIAA wants to create through legislation.

Re:WOW

[sangreal66]

That is hardly a catch. Congress always has the ability to change laws, that is the purpose of the Congress.

Re:WOW

[Demonspawn]

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

Re:WOW

[studerby]

Congress always has the ability to change laws,

Congress's ability to change copyright law is constrained by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. For example, they couldn't grant a perpetual copyright (although the current case law is that they can grant a very very long copyright, with no limit yet defined).

But yes, Congress has a huge degree of flexibility in modifying copyright.

Re:WOW

[TiggertheMad]

Personally I hope that the RIAA is successful in shutting down music file swapping.

Do you really want that? One view is that the RIAA is just a businuess with a just reason to be attempting to prevent copywrite infringment. Another view is that it is an incredibly corrupt organization that exploits musicians, uses it's monopoly on the marketplace to stifle innovation, crush potential competion, promote cultural homogony, and finally subvert the copywrite laws laid down by the founding father of the USA to maintain control of it's IP for perpetuity.

I hope they die a horrible chapter11 death, so that we can move into the 21st century with a healthy and vibrant music industry. One of the US's largets exports is our culture. When our culture is comprised of nothing but crappy Brittney clones, what do you think is going to happen?

Re:WOW

[Jason Earl]

I am sure that Microsoft would happily create versions of their software that only copied software correctly. Microsoft would simply make sure that all files had some sort of DRM flags, and it would obey them implicitly. In fact, Microsoft would love to see this sort of thing mandated by law because Free Software would never be able to comply. If I can get the source to cp then I can modify it so that it doesn't give a hoot about DRM. Microsoft would be happy as clams to see Free Software (and all of the other small-time developers) shut down for good.

That's why I will happily support the RIAA in their efforts to track down and punish file swappers. I can live without free beer copies of the latest boy band, but I can't live without Free Software.

Re:WOW

[Jason Earl]

I agree that the RIAA is evil, and I likewise agree that their day in the sun is coming to an end. However, I think that the correct way to get rid of the RIAA is for musicians and fans to work around the RIAA middlemen. There are plenty of bands that encourage people to download their music. If you really want to put a stake in the RIAA's heart find a few bands that encourage filesharing that you like, purchase their CDs, and tell your friends.

Downloading the latest RIAA boy band's newest album on Grokster doesn't do anything but give publicity to RIAA acts. The RIAA pays good money to the radio stations so that folks can hear their music for free. The RIAA doesn't hate P2P because the tunes are free, they hate it because they can't control it. The RIAA companies know that if customers get used to getting their music off of the Internet that their contacts in the radio and retailing businesses are worth a heck of a lot less.

Re:WOW

[Jason Earl]

I am more than happy to allow the RIAA to control their proprietary files by suing folks that distribute them illegally. This doesn't wreck the network, it simply makes it more likely that folks will share files legally. When the P2P networks are chock full of music that the artists actually want you to share then the RIAA will well and truly be screwed because that will mean that people are getting their music fix without the RIAA middlemen. Once artists can get their music heard by a wide audience without the RIAA then the RIAA will cease to exist.

The RIAA was fighting for control of the Internet, and the courts just told them that since the filesharing networks have significant legal uses that they can't prosecute the creators of the software. However, they pointed out that Congress could change the law if they wanted. If the choice that we give Congress is the complete abolition of copyright or the legislation of copyright controls on all computers in the U.S. then Congress will probably choose to mandate copyright controls. If copyright controls are mandated across the board then you can kiss any chance of real change happening goodbye. The Internet will become just like radio is today.

That's why the end user lawsuits are so important. If it can be shown that prosecution curbs the illegal distribution of copyrighted files then Congress will be less likely to kill the Internet with legislation.

I'll take saving the Internet over stealing Boy Band MP3s every day of the week.

The most overturned appeals court?

[October_30th]

Wasn't 9th the most overturned appeals court?

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[DAldredge]

If you check you will find out that they have had the most overturned cases by NUMBER, not by percentage.

They handle more cases that any other circuit court in the nation.

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[queequeg1]

Here's pretty good article that discusses the rate at which 9th Circuit decisions are overturned.

9th Circuit article

Based on what little editorial comment is contained in the article, this is not the sort of decision that tends to get the 9th circuit in trouble (to the extent getting overturned equates getting in trouble). Instead, the 9th circuit tends to get in trouble when its judges follow what their conscience tells them rather than what binding precedent dictates. In this case, it appears that the court was following US Supreme Court precedent to the letter.

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[damiangerous]

If you would check (I notice you didn't provide a source) you would see that the 9th leads in overturned cases in both percentage and number. They are just barely the busiest circuit, sure, but the second busiest circuit (5th) with only a 3% smaller caseload is less than one third as likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court Source.

Hallelujah!

[tokered]

This is amazing!!!! I am jumping up and down in my office, my coworkers think I am crazy!!!

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?

More proof!

[grub]

Netcraft confirms it: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not dying.

Re:More proof!

[Fnkmaster]

Hi, this post is all about the Ninth Circuit Judges, THE REAL NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES. This post is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about the Ninth Circuit Judges. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:

1. The Ninth Circuit Judges are liberals.

2. Ninth Circuit Judges get overturned ALL the time.

3. The purpose of the ninth circuit judge is to flip out and create new laws out of thin air.

Ninth Circuit Judges can decide any cases they want! Ninth Circuit Judges piss off conservatives ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this Ninth Circuit Judge who was eating at a smoothie bar. And when some dude dropped his iPod the Ninth Circuit Judge legalized filesharing. My friend Mark said that he saw a Ninth Circuit Judge totally uppercut some law just because the law was passed by a Republican Congress and made no sense.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read?

[baudilus]

HAHA you said 'read the whole thing' LOL

Like that'll ever happen on slashdot...

In other news

[gorbachev]

Orrin Hatch's campaign contributions just grew by hundredfold.

A sentence or two...

[cytoman]

... about what the whole issue is about would help greatly.

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.

Summary of the case

[Jack Greenbaum]

It would have been useful if this post had mentioned what the case was about. Here is the summary paragraph from the PDF:

This appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment.

Don't jump up and down yet...

[Chordonblue]

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).

Re:Don't jump up and down yet...

[flossie]

Napster ... technology was equally available for non-infringing uses

The difference between Napster and Grokster, as explained in the Judge's opinion, is that Napster had a centralised index and were therefore in a "supervisory" role with the ability to prevent copyright infringement on a per-file basis. There is no centralised index for Grokster and the authors of the software do not therefore have a supervisory role. The software developers are unable to prevent individual acts of copyright infringement and therefore they do not have a duty to do so.

(The judge explains it better, but he used a lot more words to do it)

Read the PDF, it is surprisingly clearly written and demonstrates that judges do sometimes understand technology!

Re:Explanation?

[andfarm]

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]

Uh oh!

[mehaiku]

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.

the appeals court clearly "got it"

[The_Bagman]

as Felten and others noted on their blogs, the money quote is:

As to the question at hand, the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Software Distributors is clearly dictated by applicable precedent. The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, "The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress." 464 U.S. at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972)).

re:

[unformed]

It's April 1st dude.

Wait, no it's no. WTF? Crap, it's the end of the world, run for your lives!

Re:Only Matter of Time

[mehaiku]

You forgot all of that filthy smut exchanged freely with no corporate oversite! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!

Re:9th circus court of schlamiels.

[Westech]

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.

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[Aneurysm9]

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.

Re:No Context?

[hibiki_r]

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

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[ewhac]

Cripes, when was the last time the EFF won a case? Reno v. ACLU?

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

Some verbiage I didn't expect to see:

[eidechse]

"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?

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[bnenning]

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.

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[Keebler71]

So let me get this straight...

-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

Could mean trouble from Congress... but maybe not!

[g_adams27]

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...

... but on the other hand, consumers aren't totally friendless in Congress. Richard Boucher (liberal Democrat) has consistently stood on the side of consumers and is pushing his anti-DMCA bill (the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCR)). And Joe Barton (conservative Republican) is the head of the powerful House Energy and Commerce committee. He has publically expressed his opposition to further DMCA/INDUCE-style bills. And since the DMCR is going through his committee, his opinion will count for a lot in this fight.

Don't you think its time to get the DMCA repealed?

[MichaelCrawford]

While the US Constitution allows Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Not just the DMCA, but copyright itself could be repealed tomorrow if we could get the votes in Congress to do so.

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.

Now go donate! Most of you haven't...

[geekotourist]

For all the amazing things they do and things they've done they are a small non-profit. Only a small fraction of Slashdot readers are EFF members because if 1/10th of us joined then it should have 80,000 members. It doesn't. That's a lot of free riders, or a lot of people who think that none of these issues will ever affect them.

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!

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[Experiment 626]

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.

Musicians - notice the enabled business model

[Tired and Emotional]

While as a musician myself I hate to see musicians getting ripped off, in reality, the software in question only makes simpler something that can be done with a fair amount of ease without the software (think ftp and a bulletin board) so if the decision had gone the other way it would have been a legal recognition of luddism.

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?

it only gets better...

[Rimbo]

...when you read what's in there:

The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms.

It's exactly what artists and the EFF have been saying all along.

Score one for the little guy...

[mhollis]

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?