RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

The Hobo writes "It's official: Hollywood studios and record companies on Friday asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn a controversial series of recent court decisions that have kept file-swapping software legal." (Previous /. coverage here.)

Comments

Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[Anonymous Coward]

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[PigeonGB]

While I agree on most points, it is hard to say that copying in itself hurts no one without someone freaking out that you basically said it is ok to copy things because no one gets hurt.

You didn't say that. You're simply saying that no one lost money directly from a copy, which is the truth. Now if someone making a copy decides not to pay for something, the copyright owner has lost a potential sale, but it would be fraudulent to claim it as an actual loss.

Here's something that the RIAA and others don't like to admit. When someone downloads an MP3, or even an album of MP3s, it doesn't prevent them from subsequently buying the album. I know plenty of someone who downloaded the Dave Mathews Band album when it was prematurely released, only to buy the CD afterwards anyway. So by the logic put forth by many like the RIAA, the RIAA broke even in terms of losses in that case. That's absurd.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay. Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault. It is an abuse. And it should be treated as such. Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's. The criminals are prosecuted. (Regardless of whether or not you feel that copyrighted material swapping is indeed a crime, either way, its NOT the p2p network's fault.)

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[ArbitraryConstant]

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them. Even though no direct loss occurs, their copyright is still being violated.

Unfortunately, the members of the **AA abused the market, and now the invisible hand is tearing them a new one. This is nothing more and nothing less than the market attempting to bring the price down to what people are willing to pay.

Anyone that knows economics knows that if the price is that far above what people are willing to pay, the situation is very unstable and it doesn't take much to bring the whole thing crashing down. Napster was the catalyst, but if it hadn't come along someone else would have done it, probably within a few months of the same time.

The market is built into human nature, The **AA's attempts to win a battle against human nature are evidence of the extent to which they are disconnected from reality. It's like trying to stop the drug trade or prostitution. You can spend an arbitrary amount of effort trying, but all you can do is drive up the price, and in the case of all 3, not by very much.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcrbids]

In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

... and you'll argue this "no loss" defense until you have some significant work of your own, of intellectual nature - a book, music, software, database, etc...

Really, copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers, it's about offering producers choice about their works. They can give it away, license it, or keep it carefully to themselves.

With the exception of the rediculous term (~ 100 YEARS!) copyright is one form of intellectual property that our government got RIGHT. Either I have a right to dictate how my works are used, or I have no defense against larger companies who wish to steal my works for profit.

Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys. Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.

What makes this issue particularly relevant is that P2P is the fundamental structure of the Internet itself. Any IP address can "publish" materials online via HTTP, anon-FTP, BitTorrent, NNTP, and too many other protocols to name.

If all forms of P2P are illegal, then the Internet is, also.

Write a letter to your senator/representative today!

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[idesofmarch]

You miss some points well.

1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that to pay anything, even a dollar per album, is inherently a rip-off. If you think I am kidding, talk to some school kids.

2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.

3. In your last point, you seem to try to say that the concept of copyright should be changed to make it so that anyone can copy anything. If I am wrong, please correct me. So what exactly should copyright protect then? It seems you have taken away all rights. I think what you are really trying to say is "I want to copy whatever I want legally and screw everyone else." Surely, you realize that if people are not rewarded for their work (sometimes years of work on a single project), they will stop working. Sure, a few will do it purely out of love, but then they will realize their savings are gone and they have to take some other full time job, and hey, pretty soon they are down to half hour per day of creative work.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[mcc]

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them.

Not necessarily. Copyright owners don't actually have any "rights". What they have are privileges, granted by congress based on a mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

It may be some of the privileges granted to copyright owners may be in the best interests of promoting the useful arts and sciences; but if we begin to fall into the misconception that the copyright system exists for the copyright owners' benefit, we are making a big mistake.

I'd say artists have to a certain degree a right to be compensated for use of their work, but I'd say saying copyright owners get complete and total control over exactly how copyrighted material is used is something which benefits no one at all except the owners of the RIAA and MPAA corporations.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water?

[rpresser]

The law doesn't take the simple-minded view that a loss must be money taken away from someone, it can also be something of value that someone would have rightfully had but for another person's wrongful conduct.

Therefore, Sonny Bono should have been drawn and quartered, because "something of value" -- many, many works whose copyright was due to expire -- would have been rightfully the property of the public but for his wrongful conduct.

Alas, now that he's dead we cannot kill him again.

Go figure

[nurb432]

This is nothing new, and expected..

Don't blame the tool

[Kethinov]

Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal. **AA needs a grip on reality. Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue.

Re:Don't blame the tool

[Jim_Maryland]

Could one argue that computers (operating sytem, hardware, and software) themselves are inducing people to commit copyright infringement? Without the PC, how many games/music/movies/software/etc... would be copied?

Just because a tool can be used for illegal actions doesn't mean the tool itself is bad (as you point out with the knife example). If tools are considered responsible for criminal activities, we might as well eliminate quite a bit of the technology we use (cars, guns, knives, PCs, VCRs, baseball bats, plastic wrap, rope, paper, fuel, etc...) as they can all be quite useful when applied incorrectly.

Id10ts

[ProudClod]

"This is one of the most important copyright cases ever to reach this court," the groups said in papers filed with the court.

Yes, but not for the reason the RIAA may think. The point is that filesharing by P2P, as demonstrated by Bittorrent distribution by many companies, is a solution to a major bandwidth problem, and as such it'd be madness to ban it because it can be used to infringe copyright - there's about as much grounds to do so as there is to ban all net file transfer activity.

If the software has a legitimate use ...

[hattig]

Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

* standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *

Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The question would be if all music/video sharing software should be made illegal. What if amateur musicians and filmmakers decided to create software or utilize existing software that would let them share their creations? I could see this as being a slippery slope, but I don't see where all music and video sharing is illegal.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ...

[haeger]

If the software has a legitimate use then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?
Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

.haeger

Naturual Progression

[powerpuffgirls]

With so much at stake, it's not surprising that this will eventually involve the Supreme Court. However if this is once again ruled against them, they will have serious problem.

FTP, HTTP, etc

[Hatta]

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," federal Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his 2003 decision. "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."

It will be interesting to see what the arguments of the RIAA will be. What fundamentally distinguishes FTP or HTTP servers from other file sharing programs? By what critera can a programmer know if the program he is writing is illegal?

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc

[Kethinov]

There is no difference. I can share loads of copyrighted material on my webserver if I wanted to. The only difference? It's easier to shut that activity down. Dedicated p2p systems are harder to shut down. The technology to do this has existed for decades. Only now is it becoming mainstream. The **AA has been sitting on a failing business model for a long time. Their meddling with US legislation is merely an act of desperation out of fear of change.

Well, it's merely a request so far.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing stopping them from making a request if they've got the money to pay for the lawyers, but it doesn't mean much. Even if they agreed to hear it, which is doubtful, they would agree with the previous decisions.
Besides which, it is really quite irrelevant what the US Law says about P2P because P2P is only marginally concerned with the US. If the US Congress passed a law saying all people who possessed P2P software will be rounded up and executed tomorrow and the Supreme Court backed it up and the President went on Fox News and announced it to the drones and their neighbors all agreed to turn in the dirty evil file trader enemies of the corporate State of America, it still wouldn't stop P2P. Even them you would still find files on Kazaa tomorrow. Consider that. The US is not the center of the world and when it comes to the Internet it is no longer even a major player.

Be careful what you wish for...

[IgD]

This could really backfire on the music and movie industries. The supreme court might take the betamax decision to a new level. I'm all for this.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[JaxGator75]

If you repeat it enough times, it just might become true!

Then again, you could just be wrong and saying otherwise MIGHT prove nothing...

Just maybe...

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, you stole the money, but see, when somebody downloads a song of any P2P distribution channel, they're making a copy. Stealing involves taking something so that the victim is not able to use it at all. If I grab a copy of some song, I'm leaving a copy up on that person's computer so they can still enjoy listening to it.

Swapping music isn't really stealing. Get your terms straight.

As Ani DiFranco said

[marktaw.com]

"Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

Starving musicians everywhere should file a class action suit against the RIAA for being used as the RIAA's defense in these cases, when we all know that the starving musicians are starving because of the RIAA's monopolistic nature & underhanded treatment of their "talent."

here's a suggestion for meeting the RIAA's prez

[Anonymous Coward]

load up Goatse (aka hello.jpg) into a digital camera that has a lcd preview screen.

then walk up to the RIAA president and say "look at this butt pirate". (This series of photos feature Ron Jeremy being goatsed this way. No goatse displayed on that page.)

Look, it's simple...

[el-spectre]

There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[PigeonGB]

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.

In any case, no one wants to rip off musicians or the people who are employed by the RIAA. The Internet provides a chance for innovation and new ways to market products, and the RIAA is very slowly getting with the times.

I could copy music, and I can do so legally. Companies exist, such as audiolunchbox.com, that allow me to not only download songs but buy them. If the RIAA actually decided to make use of what its customers would already be willing to use, and didn't gouge them with high prices and lawsuits, perhaps they wouldn't be complaining about "theft".

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally, so your analogy doesn't stand. Your statement makes it sound like copying is immoral by itself, which it is not.

To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[LordK2002]

If enough people agree, they'll change.

Wrong.

If enough people with money and influence agree, they'll change.

There is a huge difference.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[PigeonGB]

I know you were trying to make a point. But the way you left it made it sound like copying was equal to mugging someone or committing fraud.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

Two different statements. One is wrong because it is a blanket statement that doesn't apply in all cases, and the other one is correct because it applies in all cases where a person gives you permission to copy.

That's my point when I said you were being intellectually lazy, to quote you when you refer to those who break the "rules" and then try to say they are the victims. I agree with you in that if it is illegal, it shouldn't be done. I haven't really downloaded music files by the RIAA ever since Napster was taken down. I legally do get music files from friends' bands or bands that understand that the Internet is an amazing new tool to advertise their music to fans.

I still think that the RIAA is crappy for not only bringing lawsuits to its own customers but also trying to make otherwise legitimate tools illegal simply because they can be used illegally.

While I see your point, that copyright exists and changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright, you made it while also painting copying as by default immoral, the likes of fraud and mugging people on the street. I was simply correcting you, and I apologize for doing so in a way that seemed flameworthy.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[IWorkForMorons]

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to change the rules in their favour, while leaving their customers with few alternatives. There are a set of rules that allows the publisher to get paid (CD levies, store levies, etc), to cover "losses" from people copying things. In return, people were given the right to make back ups of their purchases. This was the "Fair Use" clause. While it does allow for some people to make illegal backups, for the most part people stayed within the law. Now that the publishers have found a new enemy to blame all their woes on (P2P), they are systematically removing fair use rights, while still holding on to their money paid from the levies. What will be left is a system where people will be paying 3 or 4 times for the same item, and if it is lost or broken then they have to pay 3 or 4 times again for that item. Their rights to back up what they bought have been taken away. Whether you like this or not doesn't matter. In time, the whole system will crumble under it's own weight. People will spend less money on those items, because the value/price ratio will be so far out of whack. The whole exercise of trying to "save themselves" will ultimately be the publishers downfall. While this idea doesn't make me sad, what does make me sad is that customer rights will practically be non-existant by that time.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Yebyen]

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

The 'rules' of society are the rules that a majority of society follows. If a majority of society is breaking a rule, then it's not a rule of society anymore. If a majority of some subset of society is breaking a rule, and if a majority of society accepts this subset's right to exist, then there is an inequity in the system. It is possible for laws and socially acceptable rules to differ, just like it is possible for laws and morals to differ.

I still agree with your overall conclusion. If the rules are wrong, the rules need to be changed. When some people play by the rules, and some others don't, that is also inequity in the system.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[Xtifr]

Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

Nope. Not only does that make no sense under the applicible laws, but I just spot-checked several, and none of them say that. Most just say, "unauthorized duplication is prohibited," while a few go on to mention that public performance, broadcast and rental or hire are also forbidden. None of them say that loans are forbidden.

(Actually, most of my CDs are legally redistributable concert recordings from bands that allow such things (mainly, in my case, Hot Tuna, the Radiators, Gov't Mule, They Might Be Giants, the Butthole Surfers and the Flaming Lips) as found at places like the Internet Archive, but I checked my more mainstream CDs, and none had the statement you claim.)

When the VCR first came on the market, most uses were infringing. Prerecorded tapes typically cost around $100, and there weren't any rental outlets. When the MPAA failed to get the technology banned, they did the smart thing, and adapted to it, and now it's a huge source of revenue for them, and most uses of the VCR are not infringing (although there's surely plenty of copyright infringement still occurring). What lesson can we learn from this? Well, if you're the RIAA, apparently none!

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

...changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright...

Heh...tell that to Rosa Parks, or Galileo, or Martin Luther King. Some laws won't be changed until they can be made unenforcable. It took all that bootlegging to make prohibiton unenforcable and thus repealed. Many minority rights wouldn't exist if it weren't for the violators. Only the law breakers will get copyright stricken off the books. This is not an issue in gen pop, and the politicians being constantly re elected are only making matters worse.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[iminplaya]

You choose to live in a society...

That's like saying "I chose to be born on this planet" This "implied social contract" is a load of bull. We live in a world of "might makes right". It's that simple. The guy with the gold controls the guy with the gun, and you're going to follow their rules. An "implied social contract" does not involve coercion. An "implied social contract" means voluntarily doing the right thing beacuse it's right, not because someone tells you to.

Re:Look, it's simple...

[shark72]

"It was. It was called fair use."

Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

"I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree."

Also interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? If you would like to see what US law says about "fair use" (as opposed to the common Slashdot misunderstandings), Here's the link. Ivan Hoffman also has an excellent article about Napster's failed attempt to defend their actions as fair use. pdinfo.com addresses the specific issue of music and fair use here ; they write "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

So, if you've found a law that makes it okay to copy my friend's CDs onto cassette tapes, please post the links. In either case, there's an important difference between "under the radar" copyright violation (making copies of your friends CDs in small quantities) for which nobody will get on your case, vs. activities which are truly "fair use."

"Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ..."

That's counter to the popular understanding of how it works. It's explained here (Google is indeed great for finding instances of that retarded "the RIAA gets a cut" meme, but for stuff like this, just going to the actual law book will save a lot of wasted time). The vast majority of the money goes to artists, composers and musicians -- who, I should add, generally aren't paid enough. A small percentage goes to record companies. None goes directly to the RIAA.

I love this quote...

[Eric Damron]

"These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability..."

In other words, they're staying within the law... Oh how dare they...

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you walked up to me and took a COPY of my wallet containing $200 and spent it on drugs and hookers... I really wouldn't give a shit. Idiot.

RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P

[Bonewalker]

Look, we can get all the music we want for free, as citizens, on the radio, and all the movies we want, on cable tv. Why are they free for us? Because advertisers pay someone big money.

So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.

EASY FORMULA!

[Spy der Mann]

Start selling the CD's from $3 to $10 at most.
People'll buy them for hundreds.

Then, and ONLY then, they can start persecuting P2P file sharers.

I told it before. The recording industries are NO LONGER NEEDED. They're history, and belong back in the days when making expensive vinyl records was the only way to distribute music.
We've come to a time where new small distributors are wanting to emerge.
Give up. Pass the flag.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping.

[hacknslashdot]

This is a terrible analogy, a better analogy is this:

I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about? .. and infact, in this case, should the shoe company sue "Wholesale cobbler goods" where I bought the tools to make my copy of your shoes?

Not as clear cut as the riaa would like you to think huh?

File swapping software illegal?

[antivoid]

It's ridiculous:
If they made file-swapping software illegal, that would mean that:
- Windows Explorer is illegal, since you can swap files with it
- ANY ftp client is illegal
- Firefox/Internet explorer is illegal, because it technically has the capability to swap .html files

I dont get it how people can demand things as "fuzzy" as this. Where do you draw the line?

Yes

[dtfinch]

The Supreme court will most certainly find that any technology allowing the free communication of raw data facilitates piracy and is therefore illegal. This includes web browsers, email, phone lines, the post office, and the like. And so we should arrest or sue the providers of each. Nevermind that the constitution intended for the reach of copyrights and patents to be extremely limited. Not.

The media lobby isn't about fighting piracy. Many P2P providers have offered proposals on how to legitimize P2P, as has happened with past technologies such as audio recording, radio, television, and vcr's. Each time publishers sued and shouted claims of "piracy" and Congress has had to step in to force a solution that doesn't involve the destruction of the new, superior technology.

The media lobby fights to protect their control. Your music doesn't doesn't reach store shelves if they don't get a 97% cut. Yes, recording artists average about 3% in the end. Some even lose money after the hidden fees. All they want to do is get their music out, and gigs pay most of their income. Technologies like P2P offer a way to circumvent the control of the media companies over distribution.

Most P2P traffic is piracy because the media companies have refused to cooperate in working out reasonable licensing plans, as has happened with EVERY new distribution technology that they couldn't control. As was done with radio, Congress will likely need to step in and make it happen.

Re:We already have a decision...

[Peyna]

You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have not choosing to hear it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.

I had mod points..

[jonhuang]

..but I decided to reply anyway.

As I've heard a starving artist say, "You can give whatever reason you want for downloading mp3s instead of buying CDs, and I'm okay with that. Just don't tell me that you're doing it to help me make a living.

Whacky

[smclean]

I think the problem the courts will have to face is the fact that not only do companies create P2P software, individual developers create P2P software for free. They do not profit on it. This makes the *AA's case significantly shakier, because they can't prattle on about how the 'business model' attempts to skirt copyright law; there will be no business model. There will be no profit, IE no sinister motive.

Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?

I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.

The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.

We've got some time

[maximino]

But we really need to use it wisely. I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to take this particular case this term; the reasoning of the 9th Circuit is solid, and it's certainly in-line with what the SC itself has found copyright law to allow.

But this is no time to become complacent. Congress has the power to write/rewrite the copyright laws at its discretion, and the Supreme Court has largely decided that it can't (or won't) interfere with that power. Expect the fight to shift to the legislative arena, with all the lobbying ability at the **AA's disposal. The INDUCE act and PIRATE act are just the harbingers of what they might try.

The lesson is that we've got to take P2P mainstream! It's got to be built into important applications that are used on a daily basis, so that lobbyists line up on the other side when the fight comes. It's good that it's already being used to distribute Linux distros, but we need enough uses that it is no longer possible to talk about banning it. There's probably only about a 2-year window before the legislation starts coming, so people who are software developers need to get cracking.

Painting the RIAA/MAPP into a corner!!

[Starluck]

OK, these are not my words but they have had me thinking now for a few weeks on the reprocusions of more laws aimed at attacking p2p and the people that use them. What I am going to cut in paste below is a post by my fellow poster on another tech site about the ramifications and consequences that further laws/bills might have. I really respect the community here at slashdot and would love to hear what everyone else thinks about this vision of the future, could this be the consequence of the RIAA/MPAA's action, I certainly think so! Heres the post please share with me your thoughts:

" Ok first of all the internet is global. Hate to point out the obvious, but this seems something the US congress fails to grasp. And fine, you can make p2p illegal in the US. Or even the ability to copy CD's, record TV shows, etc. Because honestly the MPAA & RIAA are really just interested in the distribution centers, and the profits made by these distributors. The internet is a VERY real threat to these types of buisnesses. So p2p is illegal, and our fair use rights are revoked. Fine great. The RIAA / MPAA have just criminalized their own consumers. So other than a potential boycott of thier products, you have a global market place, and open source software. Some P2P programs are already offering encryption. I don't know if the RIAA / MPAA realize what they are about to cause. Currently P2P encryption is either broken, or very weak. But that's because there isn't much demand for it. Most of the WAREZ DOODZ still use FTP servers and are generally fairly lax about thier security. Every so often a bust is made which keeps piracy from becoming too wide spread. Currently I think the model works, pirated content isn't too hard to find, if you want it, but there is quality issues, and the programs are not as robust as the commercial services (iTunes). But at the same time piracy is kept in check with current laws, and is prevented from becoming too rampant (in the US). Fastforward to 2007. Companies (some in kerplackistan, Russia, Caribbean, whatever) - as well as a few Open Source projects have launched the next generation in P2P applications. These encrypted networks are vast, scores of contributors join, and produce content of thier own. Files are ranked according to completion & quality. The RIAA & MPAA are helpless, as just to get s subpoena, it costs millions of dollars to rent the computer cluster just to decyrpt the data for one of these P2P users, and there are millions of users. Once a particular checksum is cracked, the encrytion scheme changes, or cypher strength is increased, automagically patched in the background. My suggestion to the RIAA / MPAA: You don't know how good you have it right now. Necessity is the mother of invention. Give the public, your consumers, a good reason to develope a parallel p2p encrypted network & it will happen faster then you can say Napster." (twitchster)

File this under...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When we can't make profits legitimately, legislate and/or cheat any way we can to our profits."

This (apparently) is one of the time honored tactics of Business, and has been around since the time of John D. Rockfeller & Standard Oil (See http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/rock.htm for highlights).

How will I buy CD's without P2P?

[gillbates]

Between work and the rest of my life, I spend a lot of time not browsing in record stores. That's right - I don't have the time to go to the store and sit in a listening room for hours on end...

Even though I spend hours at work listening to music, it's all on CD - I don't want to risk getting sued by the RIAA. And I'm getting pretty tired of my collection - but I'm not going to risk getting fired and (possibly) sued because I wanted to listen to something different...

Now granted, if I had P2P, I could scope out new bands, and order the CD through Amazon during my lunch hour. But I don't have P2P. And I haven't bought a CD in about 12 to 18 months.

I wonder when the RIAA is going to wake up and figure out that P2P is the most effective way to market music to time-starved professionals. We have the money for CD's, but lead hectic lives; time spent in a record store is time that could have been spent coding. We can't stand the stuff on the pop-40 stations, but we are willing to buy good music - if only we could find it...

And the interesting part is that I'm spending much more on books than on CD's these days - I can read before I buy without being thought a criminal.

Precedent

[MacWiz]

How will the Supreme Court rule?

Hmmm.... let's see. The RIAA's case goes basically like this: "Those thieving pirates are stealing our stuff." This is the same offensive legal tactic that was used to stop piano rolls, player pianos, radio, tape recorders, cassettes and VCRs, just to name the most obvious "pirate" technologies that threatened to destroy the entire entertainment industry.

They've never won before with that argument. But hey, maybe the Supremes will do acid the week that the RIAA case comes up and forget every prior decision handed down over the last 100 years in cases involving technology and copyright.