Posted on 11/07/2005 1:34:43 PM PST by GreatOne
Grokster, the free music-swapping website that prompted a legal battle ending in the US Supreme Court, agreed to shut down its service under a settlement with the US music industry, industry officials said.
Grokster will shut down its peer-to-peer (P2P) network that had been accused of massive copyright violations, prompting a lawsuit that ended with the highest US court ruling that it contributed to piracy, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
"This settlement brings to a close an incredibly significant chapter in the story of digital music," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the RIAA.
"This is a chapter that ends on a high note for the recording industry, the tech community and music fans and consumers everywhere. At the end of the day, this is about our ability to invest in new music. An online marketplace populated by legitimate services allows us to do just that."
The RIAA, which spearheaded the legal effort against P2P networks, said a consent agreement would be presented to court.
"The settlement includes a permanent injunction prohibiting infringement -- directly or indirectly -- of any of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works," said the RIAA in a joint statement with the National Music Publishers Association.
"This includes ceasing immediately distribution of the Grokster client application and ceasing to operate the Grokster system and software."
In June, US Supreme Court ruled networks such as Grokster may be held liable for infringement if they encourage people to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted songs, films or other content. This opened the door for the music industry to pursue damages.
"The owners and operators of Grokster -- like numerous other online services all across the globe -- heard nine US Supreme Court justices speak in a unanimous voice -- a voice that was heard loud and clear," Bainwol said.
"As the court articulated in no uncertain terms, there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct a business. This settlement makes clear that businesses are well aware when they are operating on the wrong side of that line."
I could see the logic of the original Napster lawsuit, wherein the files were all stored at a central hub, and people were making money off of advertisements. But pure p2p software should not be touched, imho. I'm sure that the people who use these softwares would not be running out and buying the music/movies to begin with, so I find it hard to believe that the industries are losing that much money.
I'm not a downloader, as I've seen the inordinate amount of fines that have been imposed ($600,000), which are ridiculous. Those statutes are intended for those actually making a profit off of pirated movies/music, but these dopey judges have been convinced to use them for straight sharers. Not right.
As long as RIAA focuses on producing soundtracks for MPAA cr@p such as Brokeback Mountain, the recording and movie industries will consign themselves to oblivion.
<-----Gay cowboys who eat pudding...and favored to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year.
The FBI is on its way, you TERRORIST!............
On a related note, is it illegal at any time to download songs just to listen to them on your computer or is it only illegal if you burn them to a CD?
??? If I recall correctly, Napster was also P2P. I'm pretty sure I remember on-demand uploads as well as downloads.
As for the rest of your questions, I think the difference is analog vs. digital. The n,000,000th digital copy is as good as the original.
The media you own is for you alone yet not your own.
I might have some sympathy for the recording industry if they hadn't tricked some of their stars into signing away all rights to their music....
Of course it is (except when the provider -- e.g. Yahoo! Music videos -- has a deal with the copyright owner).
There just ISN'T enough worthwhile music being generated to fill an 80GB hard drive
Movies will be next
The strategy that the RIAA is taking implies that the former is true, that even downloading is illegal. Suing grandfathers whose grandson downloaded music seems to be their tactic.
I guess we should not borrow our friends' music either. Should we listen if we didn't pay for it?
Circulating is fine. Copying is illegal.
This could be a good thing for the indie artist. But then it could also be a bad thing if the RIAA would want to stop us from offering our own music for free.
LOL! They REALLY do that in the film?!
The music they're producing now sucks so bad it's not worth paying for it. The rights of the old music I steal are not owned by the musicians, so I don't care if they don't get my money. I can copy any music I want by running it through analog, and it looses no quality. Digital --> oversampled analog --> digital. They have over priced their product, and they have reduced it's quality -- they've screwed themselves. Ha.
Youre joking, right? I have a second 250 gig filled with mp3s from USenet of my fav genres (celtic, jazz, new age, game soundtracks, military, movie soundtracks, rock, etc).
And wonderfully encrypted/decrypted with a click of a mouse, via DriveCrypt Plus!
True but there is still free music sites like download.com and soundclick.com where indie artists offer their music to the public free.
Same difference really. You could have an online lending library circulating hundreds of legally purchased copies of songs and movies, as long as no two people are listening to the same copy at the same time.
Absolutely correct. If you are into independent artists, you will find a lot of free music out there that is 100% legal to download.
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.