Court Urged to Hear File-Sharing Case

gollum123 writes "AP reports that: A disparate group made up of dozens of state attorneys general, labor unions, retailers, professional sports leagues and others urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to hear a claim brought by the recording and film industries against two Internet file-sharing firms. In legal briefs filed with the court, the petitioners stressed the justices should take the entertainment companies' case and finally resolve conflicting lower court rulings on file-sharing, said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America."

Comments

Briefs and lists of amici on EFF's website...

[stinkfoot]

From http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

• EFF's Brief in Opposition [PDF 343k] of Petition for certiorari. November 8, 2004
• Computer and Communications Industry Association and Internet Archive's Brief in Opposition [PDF 220k] of Petition for certiorari. November 8, 2004
  
  
• Progress & Freedom Foundation's Brief in Support [PDF 137k] of certiorari. November 8, 2004
• Law Professors' Brief in Support [PDF 219k] of certiorari. November 8, 2004
• States' Brief in Support [PDF 995k] of certiorari. (Brief includes AL, AK, AR, AZ, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, MS, MT, NE, NC, NV, NJ, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI, Guam.) November 8, 2004
• Omnibus Brief in Support [PDF 230k] of certiorari. (Brief includes Office of the Commissioner Of Baseball, National Basketball Association, American Society Of Media Photographers, Professional Photographers Of America, Directors Guild Of America, Writers Guild Of America (West), Screen Actors Guild, Association Of American Publishers, Association Of American University Presses, Producers Guild Of America, Graphic Artists Guild, Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association, Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association And Author's Guild Of America.) November 8, 2004
• NARAS et al's Brief in Support [PDF 787k] of certiorari. (Brief includes National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, The Country Music Association, Inc., The Gospel Music Association, the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, Jazz Alliance International, Inc., and the Rhythm & Blues Foundation.) November 8, 2004
• International Rights Owners Brief in Support [PDF 182k] of certiorari. November 8, 2004
• Artists' coalition Brief in Support [PDF 309k] of certiorari. (Coalition includes The Eagles, Brooks & Dunn, The Dixie Chicks, Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crow, Babyface, The Grateful Dead, Jimmy Buffet, Patti Loveless, Stevie Nicks, Gavin Rossdale.) November 8, 2004
• ASCAP et al's Brief in Support [PDF 458k] of certiorari (Brief includes ASCAP, BMI, Broadcast Music, Inc., Association of Independent Music Publishers, Church Music Publishers Association, Nashville Songwriters Association International, Songwriters Guild of America.) November 8, 2004
• MGM et al's Petition for certiorari [PDF 1.07M]. October 8, 2004

Non-superstars hurt? Is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The artists' documents argued performers, particularly non-superstars, are hurt by losing potential sales royalties to file-sharing."

Is this some kind of joke? Almost all of the filesharing that occurs is of "superstars," with the primary loss of money being that of the RIAA. Lesser known artists, the ones who the music groups won't advertise for, actually get their music out there and are able to have people come to their concerts. How exactly does this hurt them?

This crap of trying to get us to symphatize with the poor, unknown artist or set worker with five kids is worse than "think of the children." The people screwing those workers and unknown artists over is the RIAA, not the people going to their concerts.

"In all, 41 state attorneys general also submitted briefs. They argued file-sharing programs pose risks to consumers, such as identity theft and being unwittingly exposed to spyware and child pornography, Marks said."

This crap also makes me sick...why don't they just ban the whole damned internet, along with e-mail and web browsing?

Re:Non-superstars hurt? Is this a joke?

[mopslik]

...why don't they just ban the whole damned internet, along with e-mail and web browsing?

One thing at a time, my friend.

As Long As...

[mbrinkm]

I would prefer that the Supreme Court take it.

I believe the Court would find in favor of Grokster and StreamCast - that creating / developing / selling / distributing a product that may be used to commit a crime is legal AS LONG AS the person / company is not actively conding the crime.

Similar to the Betamax decision, but bring it into the digital age and put it to rest.

Re:As Long As...

[ravenspear]

It could be a good thing, as long as the Court can see through the RIAA fud that has been poured out for years now about how file sharing is destroying their product and stealing their revenue. The SC justices are fairly wise though, and given the intelligent discernment of the lower courts I think that they could do a good job on the case. It might shut up the entertainment cartel for a longer period and actually force them to reexamine the quality of their product as the true nature of their declining revenues.

Re:As Long As...

[Fo0eY]

the funny thing is, capitalism is based on "destroying" someone elses product and stealing their revenue

sure, it's illegal to download copyrighted media
but the entertainment industry, and now the states aren't making a clear distinction between illegal downloading and vanilla peer to peer networks

copyright law alone should be enough to protect the artists, the industries infatuation with tacking on a "on the internet" to every law and patent has got to stop