Posted on 10/17/2007 5:02:37 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
In the wake of its victory in the first file-sharing case to go to trial, the RIAA has moved on to its next target: the nefarious home of millions of illicit files, Usenet. Yesterday, a consortium of record labels filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet access provider Usenet.com.
In its complaint, the RIAA accuses Usenet.com of offering subscribers "essentially the same functionality" as do commonly-used P2P networks. The record labels cite Usenet.com's high-speed servers, the access it provides to the alt.binaries hierarchy, and the service's advertising that it provides the "'hottest way of sharing MP3 files over the Internet' without getting caught."
The RIAA is seeking a permanent injunction barring Usenet.com from inducing copyright infringement by its users along with damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the Court deems "proper and just."
The wonderful world of newsgroups For the uninitiated, the Usenet is a massive, decentralized network of servers that offers up every kind of file imaginable. There are newsgroups dedicated to warez, DVD rips, porn, music, and just about any other copyrighted material you can think of. From the perspective of rights-holders, it's an absolutely wretched hive of scum and villainy. Usenet.com's advertising doesn't do much to change those impressions. "Shh... Quiet! We believe it's no one's business but your own what you do on the Internet or in Usenet," reads the site. "We don't track user activity."
Usenet.com is one of a whole host of providers that offer a front end for newsgroups, providing access via either a web interface or a dedicated news reader for as little as $4.95 per month. The company trumpets its lengthy retention policies, blazing speeds, and anonymous access on its marketing page.
That's part of what has the RIAA up in arms. "Usenet.com has promoted and advanced an illegal business model on the backs of the music community," an RIAA spokesperson told Ars. "It may be theft in a slightly different online form, but the illicit business model of Usenet.com is little different that the Groksters of the world."
Usenet providers have also drawn the attention of the MPAA. In early 2006, the motion picture trade group sued NZB-Zone.com and BinNews.com, two Usenet front ends that it accused of orchestrating piracy on Usenet. NZB-Zone shuttered its doors within a couple of months of being sued.
The MGM v. Grokster ruling in 2005 made it easier for rights-holders to extract damages from companies whose products promote copyright infringement. In its wake, Big Content has sued a number of P2P networks. Although the lawsuit marks the first time the RIAA has targeted Usenet, the group has gone after the likes of Sharman Networks, creators of the popular and infamous KaZaA P2P network. In 2006, the MPAA, IFPI, and RIAA shared in a $115 million settlement with Sharman Networks, which subsequently agreed to begin filtering copyrighted content from KaZaA.
In response to a question of whether the lawsuit against Usenet.com marked a change in the RIAA's legal strategy, a RIAA spokesperson told Ars that the group's preference is to "bring action against those sites that facilitate illegal activity."
One difference between Usenet.com and the P2P networks previously targeted by the RIAA is the amount of "legitimate" traffic on Usenet. Yes, there's a lot of copyrighted materials, but there are also thousands of discussion groups devoted to everything from religion and programming to tech support and pet care. For those whose ISPs offer limited or no access to newsgroups, services like Usenet.com and Supernews are the only conduits to Usenet.
Although Usenet.com did not respond to our requests for comment, disclaimers throughout the site say that the company "does not condone the use of our service or servers for downloading, posting, or obtaining copyrighted material." Its Code of Conduct also frowns upon copyright infringement, prohibiting "Uploading, posting, using, or otherwise making available any materials, items, information or content that infringes or otherwise violates the copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights of any third party."
A Safe Harbor for Usenet.com? One potential roadblock for the RIAA's latest lawsuit may come courtesy of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision provides protection for ISPs from copyright infringement lawsuits as long as they take down offending material once they are served with a notice of infringement. The biggest question in the trial is whether Usenet.com qualifies for Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA. "Whether the Safe Harbor applies is the central legal question that is going to be raised," EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann told Ars.
There's some precedent for newsgroup providers finding shelter in the DMCA's Safe Harbor. In 2000, author Harlan Ellison filed a lawsuit against Stephen Robertson, who allegedly posted a number of Ellison's works to alt.binaries.e-book. One of the codefendants was AOL, which provides Usenet access to its subscribers. AOL argued that it was not liable for infringement due to the Safe Harbor provision, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. One of the factors in the decision, however, was AOL's 14-day retention policy, which the court deemed was sufficient to qualify for the DMCA's "transitory communications" Safe Harbor protection. AOL later lost that protection, however, when it was discovered that the ISP went months without checking the infringement notification inbox.
Usenet.com does have a designated agent for copyright infringement claims, as is required under the DMCA, and its retention policy may not even come into play, according to von Lohmann. If Usenet.com can show that it complies with the DMCA by removing access to infringing content and by suspending the accounts of repeat offenders, it may be enough to provide it with protection under the hosting and linking provisions of the DMCA.
An RIAA spokesperson tells Ars that the group has issued "many" takedown notices to Usenet.com, but EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann tells Ars that the volume of takedown notices isn't what counts. "The DMCA's Safe Harbor makes it very clear," von Lohmann said. "The number of notices doesn't matter as long as you take the infringing content down."
The RIAA may ultimately target other Usenet access providers, and, if successful, may make it more difficult for users to access newsgroups. But the venerable network has been around since 1980, and its decentralized nature is sure to make any attempt to stamp out copyright infringement there a futile undertaking.
Could also set a SCARY precedent for all Usenet providers if they win.
PING!
I decided that I’m not buying any more commercial music any more. I’m tired of the RIAA taking the stance that everyone’s a criminal instead of trying to find ways to make it easier for people to get digital music legitimately and DRM free. Screw ‘em.
Indie stuff is better anyway.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Buggy-whip protectionism.
I refuse to buy anything DRM.
The RIAA should be going after China and their piracy, but instead they go after single moms with 11 songs on the net and sue them $220,000 for that.
Only CAIR is a worse organization, but the RIAA isn’t too far behind.
It is also getting more difficult to tell what is legit download and what isn’t.
dizzler.com and music.download.com both have many songs online. One can even create online playlists from their selections. [These webpages — similar to the tv/movie websites that allow ‘viewing online’ — actually download the song/file to one’s computer in cache directory.]
If RIAA is suing based on the usenet download of a song, and that song is available via some (free) service such as dizzler or music.download, does RIAA still have a case?
No it won't. Anonymity is built into the design of Usenet, because it started life as an ad hoc message broadcasting system before the Internet was even invented. This unintended 'feature' is what makes it possible to post binary files as messages without any linkback to the originator of the files.
What RIAA is doing is like suing printing press manufacturers for use of a technology that does not link printed material directly to the person who originated it.
Unless people like the Clintons get their way and we're all staring at the "one world" global government. Every electronic file is ultimately traceable no matter where it's gone or coming from......
ok, go slow with me. How do i access Usenet? And what is DRM?
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and other copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices. It may also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. To some extent, DRM overlaps with copy protection, but DRM is usually applied to creative media (music, films, etc.) whereas copy protection typically refers to software.
The use of digital rights management has been controversial. Advocates argue it is necessary for copyright holders to prevent unauthorized duplication of their work to ensure continued revenue streams.[1] Opponents, such as The Free Software Foundation, maintain that the use of the word "rights" is misleading and suggest that people instead use the term digital restrictions management.[2] Their position is essentially that copyright holders are attempting to restrict use of copyrighted material in ways not included in the statutory, common law, or Constitutional grant of exclusive commercial use to them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other opponents, also consider DRM schemes to be anti-competitive practices.[3]
This kind of crap is insane! The entire concept that the providers of generic services should be held liable for any and all activity which uses that service is just wrong. It's also dangerous.
Lawyers suck.
I have also made that decision. After being ripped off for years, paying $17 for a CD with only two good songs and seeing the conduct of the RIAA, I stopped buying CDs. I haven't bought a CD in years. During this time the only music I have is 'burned' onto CDs or stored on my hard drive. I do continue get newer music, but I don't feel compelled at this time to explain where it comes from. ;^)
It's also possible to record anything you can play through your computer speakers (from internet radio, etc.). Save as .wav and covert to .mp3.
I have purchased only 1 CD in the past 10 years--the third Bat Out of Hell by Meatloaf. No more.
Ooops!
From the little bit I’ve read on these type cases it would appear to me that it would also be illegal to borrow cds from your friend. If you didn’t buy the music you don’t have the right to listen to it.
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.