Posted on 08/19/2004 1:59:49 PM PDT by expat_panama
|
News Home - Help |
 US Court Rejects Movie, Music Makers' Piracy ClaimsThu, Aug 19, 2004 By Ben Berkowitz LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday delivered a stinging blow to the anti-piracy efforts of major movie studios and music companies, ruling that several online file-sharing software companies are not liable for copyright infringement. The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Grokster Ltd., among others, and held the relief from piracy sought by the movie and music studios would amount to a renovation of the existing copyright standards, which the court called "unwise." In a nod to the rapid changes in the online media industry over the last few years, the judges further said history has proven that with new technology, markets have a way of correcting themselves. "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," the judges wrote in their opinion. At stake in the dispute are future revenues in the expanding market for digital downloads of movies and music, a business the record labels have now embraced and the movie studios have begun to explore in earnest. The music industry has suffered through a sales slump in recent years and blames much of that on illegal file sharing, although file sharers blame bad music. The movie industry, through the Motion Picture Association of America, claims analog piracy -- such as illegal copying of videotapes -- costs it some $3.5 billion a year and is concerned that digital piracy will do far more harm. FILE SWAPPERS ELATED The MPAA, which represents the movie studios, was not immediately available to comment, nor was the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), which represents the record labels. The Distributed Computing Industry Association, which represents a broad range of file-sharing companies, including Grokster, greeted the court's ruling with elation. "It is time for litigation and legislative upheaval to be supplanted by commerce," the association said in a statement. At issue was whether the defendants were liable for knowing of and contributing to copyright infringement, whether they gained and if they had the authority over infringing parties. The court found the defendants did not materially contribute to copyright infringement and that "the sort of monitoring and supervisory relationship that has supported vicarious liability in the past is completely absent" here. In arguments to the court in February, the studios and record companies said Grokster and others should apply software filters to block online swaps copyrighted work, but the services said doing so would effectively shut them down. After the music industry was rocked by the now-legendary file-sharing service Napster (news - web sites) (which has since been reborn as a legitimate platform), the entertainment community began looking more actively for ways to securely sell their wares online. Perhaps the most successful such effort has been the iTunes Music Store from Apple Computer Inc. (Nasdaq:AAPL - news), which has sold more than 100 million music downloads to date. Given their large file sizes, movie downloads have not been as popular to date, but that is expected to change as high-speed broadband connections become more widely used. (Additional reporting by Bob Tourtellotte) |
I just checked Limewire. It's available from multiple sources in several different formats. And I'm STILL not going to view it.
Does the fact that RIAA is essentially a bunch of slimeball lawyers (and I apologize in advance to REAL slimeball lawyers who I might have disparaged by comparing them to RIAA) mean that file sharers have the right to steal from copyright holders? I'll remember that and load up my car trunk with ribeye steaks the next time I get stopped by one of the door nazis at the grocery store.
Do you send a check every time you sing "Happy Birthday" in public?
How can you look at yourself in the mirror?
8^>
With me, it was my mother throwing out my collection of vintage baseball cards. I'd be richer than Croesus right now if I still had a few of the rookie cards (Sandy Koufax and several others) in that collection and were to put them up for sale.
False analogy. Private use, remember?
I hope that Satan has a good winter coat.
And oh yeah - if anyone were to offer to pay one red cent to hear me sing anything, I'd have 'em peeing in a cup in a New York minute. I don't take money from crazy people.
Real simple, so they can have single tracks on their computer that they can play back without shuffling disks. So they can have single tracks without necessarily recording or ripping it themselves. Thus the concept of trading.
And as for tracks on cassette, do you also feel that Ford should be legally obligated to give you a brand-new 2005 pickup for free if the engine blows up in your primer-colored 1971 F-100?
Well, we aren't talking about Ford being legally obliged anything. Nobody's asking ford to replace the blowout. But then it isn't ford's place either to storm in when rebuild the old engine instead of paying ford for a new one. IE, what I do with what I purchased is none of Ford's business, none of Riaa's business, etc. If I'm not knowingly breaking the law, they can butt out. They want to make money on something we can do for free. Screw 'em. That's like ford suing to say I can't rebuild my own engine. Screw them too.
Which, in my opinion, is something that they're entitled to do since they're the copyright holder.
They are the copywright holder; but that doesn't give them the right to dictate to an owner what they can do with their own property. If I buy "let it be", they have no more say in whether I copy it or destroy it. Period. As long as I'm not knowingly giving it away or selling it to people who haven't paid for it, I can do what I bloody like with my own property. Ford doesn't have such rights as Riaa and others want to claim. And because it's common-bloody-sense.
Because with a high speed connection, you can get the album via download in less time than it takes to rip the cd. Also, it ties up less of your CPU resources.
Ripping a CD to MP3 takes more power than downloading. Won't someone please think of the Planet?
A couple of minutes of work and a few mouse clicks with Nero and the actual CDs.
So they can have single tracks without necessarily recording or ripping it themselves. Thus the concept of trading.
Gotta remember that one the next time I go to Red Lobster. I can't stand fish but think their desserts are dreamy. So I'll just order the meal that comes with a piece of cake, scarf down the cake, leave the fish on the plate, then just walk out without paying.
Well, we aren't talking about Ford being legally obliged anything. Nobody's asking ford to replace the blowout. But then it isn't ford's place either to storm in when rebuild the old engine instead of paying ford for a new one.
A red herring and completely unrelated to file "sharing". We're talking about Ford being obligated to supply their customers with a replacement vehicles in this example, not them having customers arrested for an engine rebuild.
IE, what I do with what I purchased is none of Ford's business, none of Riaa's business, etc. If I'm not knowingly breaking the law, they can butt out.
If you are using a copyright holder's property without their permission, you are breaking the law.
Screw 'em. That's like ford suing to say I can't rebuild my own engine. Screw them too.
You sure like to say "screw" a lot.
>>Which, in my opinion, is something that they're entitled to do since they're the >> copyright holder.
They are the copywright holder; but that doesn't give them the right to dictate to an owner what they can do with their own property.
You don't buy the copyright when you buy the CD.
If I buy "let it be", they have no more say in whether I copy it or destroy it. Period. As long as I'm not knowingly giving it away
Which you are doing when you "share" it (i.e. make it available) to the rest of the Internet to download. You don't have that right, only the copyright holder does.
For you. How does the guy that bought his pc last week know that unless he is taught or goes out and figures it out on his own. We're not arguing how simple it is for you or I. We're noting the reality for John q. public who is computer dumber than a bag of liberals.
Gotta remember that one the next time I go to Red Lobster. I can't stand fish but think their desserts are dreamy. So I'll just order the meal that comes with a piece of cake, scarf down the cake, leave the fish on the plate, then just walk out without paying.
That would be theft. On the other hand If I go out and buy an album for a single song, don't care for the rest of the album, and then download that one song off Winmx or someplace else. I've paid for that song plus the pile of crap besides that I didn't want. Now you're po'd because I'm not paying you a second time for the piece of cake on the plate that I figured out the recipe for and cooked myself because I had the gaul not to eat it with the fish you served back at the restaraunt. Or perhaps because you were too brainded to figure out I only bought the meal to get the cake and you wouldn't sell me just the cake. Seriously. You don't seem to like the actual circumstance and seek to do anything but address the actual circumstance.
A red herring and completely unrelated to file "sharing"
Well, that's your assertion. You've yet to back it up with anything. And it has everything to do with it. It was your bloody example and I turned it back on you. Just because you don't like it, don't whine to me that the truth is illegitimate cause it don't help you.
If you are using a copyright holder's property without their permission, you are breaking the law.
If I buy Pastmasters, It's my property. They hold the copyright. But that disc is my property and they have no more right to tell me what I can do with it than Ford has in telling me what I can do with my car. Period. As long as I don't sell copies for profit or give copies to people who haven't paid for the right to have it, I'm not violating any law. So, If I copy the disk and listen to it myself, It's the same thing as rebuilding the motor in the ford and driving on the rebuilt motor instead of buying a new one from Ford.
You sure like to say "screw" a lot.
If I do or I don't it has nothing to do with the issue. What's your point?
You don't buy the copyright when you buy the CD.
No, I buy a package that is MY personal property. If you steal a CD from Walmart, it isn't Riaa that comes after you, it is Walmart - Because the disk is THEIR property, not Riaa's. If I buy a book of Rockwell prints and pull one out, frame it and hang it on the wall, I defy you to show me where the rockwell family can sue me for it. I defy you. The Copyright law does not give that level of control. Copyright is intended to deal with a marketed product - not a personal possession. Michael Jackson has the rights to the original Beatles recordings so he's owed the profit from sales due to those rights. But Michael has no right to tell me what I can or can't do with my personal copy of any beatles piece if I'm not marketing copies of it or otherwise giving it away to people that haven't already purchased the right to enjoy it. I don't owe the Rockwell family a royalty every time I pass the rockwell print hanging on my wall. Nor do I owe Michael Jackson a royalty everytime I listen to Golden slumbers. And it doesn't matter a whit how I listen to it. I have it and I purchased the content to listen to it as much as I want - the whole idea of purchasing it. Riaa wants to redefine things so they can do something with Copyright law that was never intended. Ever.
Which you are doing when you "share" it
No, what I'm doing when I share it is making it available to those that have a legal right to it. And they know who they are. If they download it and don't have a legal right to it, I'm not the one committing a crime, they are. I can produce my originals. If they can't produce theirs, let the cops have them.
You don't have that right, only the copyright holder does.
Under library checkout clause of course you have the right. It's no different than walking into the library, checking out a cd and taking it home to rip it and return the original. The guy that rips it and takes it back is no less a thief than the guy who downloads it from the internet and hasn't purchased an original copy. So, the copyright holder in large part has already made the judgement to put the thing out there for people to have easy access to and even steal copies of without having to rob walmart. Riaa has no more way of knowing who's stealing copies through library checkout than on the internet. Riaa is begging and so are you.
For all the dust you have kicked up and all the FUD you have laid down, you've still not touched my main point that the copyright holder of a piece of art gets the final say in how that piece of art is used. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing.
No, he doesn't. For example, if some Clintonista paints a portrait of his hero, he is the "copyright holder" for that image. He might publish it in the form of a novelty drink coaster, and I might buy one and convert it into a urinal target. As the copyright holder, the Clintonista will no doubt object to this. Too damn bad; he has no control over the use to which I put that piece of art, which is my physical property.
And of course you drag the next false analogy into this discussion. Parody has long had unique protections in our society that commercial music doesn't.
Nope. You said "the copyright holder of a piece of art gets the final say in how that piece of art is used". I demonstrated that you're wrong.
Nope. The false analogy remains false. There's no way to put lipstick on that particular pig - file "sharing" is theft.
You're changing the subject. You said "the copyright holder of a piece of art gets the final say in how that piece of art is used". I demonstrated that you're wrong.
good news bump
No, YOU'RE changing the subject. This entire thread is about immoral file sharing, not urinal targets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.