Counterclaim Filed in File-Swapping Case

washingtonpost ^ | Tuesday, January 28, 2003; 10:40 AM | The Associated Press

[freepatriot32]

LOS ANGELES –– The owners of the KaZaA file-sharing network are suing the movie and recording industries, claiming that they don't understand the digital age and are monopolizing entertainment.

Sharman Networks Ltd. filed its counterclaim Monday in response to a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by several recording labels and movie studios. That lawsuit accuses Sharman of providing free access to copyright music and films to millions of Internet users in the United States.

[wizzler]

You think they deserve what? To have their products illegally copied and distributed, then be sued by companies that are profiting off this infringement?

Nice sense of right and wrong you've honed for yourself there.

[Poohbah]

He's like the leftist wingnuts who thinks we "deserved" 9/11.

[Poohbah]

The RIAA and the recording industry is totally useless. Practically anyone these days can create their own sound studio and create their own CDs.

There's nothing stopping them from doing so.

[JSteff]

Back in the early 80's the movie industry tried to get the ability to record taken off of VCR machines. They said it would ruin the business. Who would buy when they could copy a rented one? They lost and yet surprisingly movie sales went UP. People could record from rented tapes yet went out and bought anyway. Hmmm.
Then MP3 in the late 90's came along with the ability to record music from shared files gotten from the internet. Sales despite that were fantastic. Then the RIAA won their case against that and starting the very next year, after it was not as easy to get the music off the net, sales went down. Hmmmm.
Is it possible that people copy samples, end up loving it and decide to buy it. Like a test drive of a car, or the free fudge sample on the boardwalk. Yes some steal it, but most will want to BUY and OWN more because of their sample. Quality of most stuff optained off the net is marginal and inconsistent at best. Prices kept artificially high and the inability to just return it if you don't like it prevent anyone buying to just try. If you hate it you can't just return it. So it never gets bought.
The whole VCR thing proved that quality will be purchased. Quality includes quality of the media, content, and overall product.
When the quality is good it will be purchased. Limiting people sharing samples has had two test studies. The VCR and MP3 cases showed sales results that on one hand the ability to make copies and share samples still bought them (the VCR case) and when people were no longer able to easily make and share samples (MP3 case) sales went down.
Yes punish those who profit from or steal others work, but the RIAA should stop being stupid.
When the RIAA shuts down KAZAA and other sharing sites and their sales still are in the tank... who will they blame then? Why don't they look back to the VCR case and face the facts that many people will still buy a quality and even non quality products if they are priced right.

[wizzler]

Your mistake is in presuming that the point here is about record sales, and whether they happen to be up or down at this moment in time. The Founders did not institute copyright protections based on ephemeral sales trends in pop culture.

The point is, instead, about a creator's ability to maintain the exclusive RIGHT to COPY his work -- i.e., to maintain the COPY-RIGHT. When thousands of people have illicitly co-opted that right for themselves, the very meaning of copyright is ripped to shreds.

Three-year sales trends are not the heart of this matter. The heart of this matter is about respecting and protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. That's why it's so digusting to see a lawsuit filed against content providers by someone like Kazaa, which makes ad revenue by facilitating and encouraging theft from the very people it's now suing.

[Houmatt]

I still can't believe a federal judge allowed them to sue a company based outside the US in the first place. That lawsuit should be thrown out for reasons of jurisdiction. But Kazaa should still sue them for being aftholes anyway.

[Houmatt]

You know, a couple of years ago, I felt the same way you do. Not anymore.

First, look at the TV/film industry. Are you aware they lobbied last year for legislation that, if it had passed, would have made DVD recorders illegal? (I am sure you already know that thanks to the Digital Milennium Copyright Act it is now a federal crime to even own, let alone sell a region-free DVD player.) What's more, they also wanted to be able to place technology on DVDs you legally purchase that would make it impossible to play on any DVD player except your own. I don't think we should have to discuss the impact that would have on video retailer chains that resell used DVDs, right?

Did you also know movie studios have sued creators of personal video recorders, such as TiVo? Would you like to know why? Because, according to Turner CEO Jamie Kellner, skipping commercials is "theft".

Finally, these people want to be able to force HDTV manufacturers to place technology in their products to scramble an HDTV signal, preventing someone from recording a program off the air, even for their personal use (Betamax decision anyone?).

On the RIAA front, these people have not only gone after Napster and other peer sharing networks. They have also used the courts to force an internet service provider (Verizon) to reveal the name and address of someone who trades mp3s. There is also their want to hire hackers to go into these peer sharing networks and do things to the site that could result in either the site crashing or someone's hard drive being damaged. (Speaking of drives, are you also aware they are putting technology in their CDs that will prevent you from playing discs you legally own on your CD-ROM drive?)

When things have gotten so bad even the likes of Phyllis Schlafly speaks against these two groups, you know something is wrong.

[Poohbah]

They have also used the courts to force an internet service provider (Verizon) to reveal the name and address of someone who trades mp3s.

You know what?

One does not have a constitutional right to anonymity while one is stealing.

There is also their want to hire hackers to go into these peer sharing networks and do things to the site that could result in either the site crashing or someone's hard drive being damaged.

You know what?

When you steal, it kinda ticks off the people you're stealing from. They might do things that you dislike. Hell, in some parts of the country, they're liable to start shooting at you.

[Poohbah]

I still can't believe a federal judge allowed them to sue a company based outside the US in the first place.

Why not? It's acting within the US--those Kazaa nodes and the Kazaa license effectively make your computer a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kazaa.

[Houmatt]

And is it also stealing if you find and download an old, rare song that is otherwise out of print and not available on CD?

That was the problem with Johnny Russell's "How Deep In Love Am I." The only way I could find it was by doing an mp3 search on Audiogalaxy.

[Poohbah]

And is it also stealing if you find and download an old, rare song that is otherwise out of print and not available on CD?

Yes.

Sorry. There is no such thing as "abandonware" unless the copyright is explicitly released.

You may not LIKE it, but copyright law gives the copyright holder the right to determine if the thing will ever be distributed, how it is distributed, et cetera.

[Houmatt]

Sorry, pal, but that is only within reason. This means is does not include deciding for others what they will watch or listen to.

And if you actually believe downloading a song that otherwise would not be available anywhere is stealing, one has to wonder if you happen to work for the music industry, because that kind of thinking is not only anti-consumer but also downright silly and unreasonable.

[Poohbah]

Sorry, pal, but that is only within reason. This means is does not include deciding for others what they will watch or listen to.

Well, if that's your argument...among other things, you've managed to make a case that EVERY artist who produces something has a right to be published by the RIAA, because if a record company says "no," that is "deciding for others what they will watch or listen to." You might want to rethink that statement a bit.

And if you actually believe downloading a song that otherwise would not be available anywhere is stealing, one has to wonder if you happen to work for the music industry, because that kind of thinking is not only anti-consumer but also downright silly and unreasonable.

Ownership of the copyright means that one owns the RIGHT to make--or NOT make--COPIES of the work in question. Period. It is an absolute right, as absolute as your own property rights SHOULD be. P2P, as practiced today, undermines not only the concept of copyright, but ALL property rights.

There are artists out there who are greatly embarrassed by their early work and prefer not to have it republished. Under your model, their wishes become irrelevant under the curious justification of "BUT I WANT IT!"

(I say "curious" because most of us realized at a fairly early age that the world doesn't revolve around our wants and desires.)

[wizzler]

You know, a couple of years ago, I felt the same way you do. Not anymore.

Sorry, none of this has to do with how I "feel," as if I might "feel" differently when I wake up tomorrow.

There is a very clear right and wrong here. Not only is it outlined unambiguously in the law, it should be apparent to anybody with a basic sense of logic and a half-decent moral compass.

[Houmatt]

Well, if that's your argument...among other things, you've managed to make a case that EVERY artist who produces something has a right to be published by the RIAA, because if a record company says "no," that is "deciding for others what they will watch or listen to." You might want to rethink that statement a bit.

That is not what I meant, and you know it.

When the RIAA (which is not a record company, by the way, so they don't publish anything) tries to tell you what you can and cannot do with a CD YOU own, tries to shut down every peer sharing network in the world as well as internet radio, they are not trying to protect their copyright. They are trying to control what you listen to.

Ownership of the copyright means that one owns the RIGHT to make--or NOT make--COPIES of the work in question. Period. It is an absolute right, as absolute as your own property rights SHOULD be.

Uh, wrong. There are two exemptions to copyright law: Fair use, and parody.

There are artists out there who are greatly embarrassed by their early work and prefer not to have it republished.

There are also several artists out there who have no problem whatsoever with peer to peer file sharing. Janis Ian for example.

This is because the RIAA does not, in fact, speak for the artists, but for the record companies, who believe they own the songs. In response, artists like Don Henley have founded their own, alternative group.

[wizzler]

This is because the RIAA does not, in fact, speak for the artists, but for the record companies, who believe they own the songs.

You're absolutely right: The RIAA speaks for record companies. What's your point? That the rights of a human who calls himself an "artist" are more noble and worthy of protection than a human who calls himself an "executive" and sits behind a desk?

And the fact is, in most cases record companies not only "believe" they own the recordings, they in fact DO own them. That's a standard function of recording contracts. Artists who sign away these rights do so voluntarily.

[Poohbah]

That is not what I meant, and you know it.

If that ain't what you meant, then maybe you misspoke (misspake? :o)

When the RIAA (which is not a record company, by the way, so they don't publish anything) tries to tell you what you can and cannot do with a CD YOU own, tries to shut down every peer sharing network in the world as well as internet radio, they are not trying to protect their copyright. They are trying to control what you listen to.

They want their member companies to get paid. P2P downloads (this got demonstrated in the Napster case) were overwhelmingly latest and greatest chart-toppers, not obscure, scarce, non-revenue-generating pieces.

Uh, wrong. There are two exemptions to copyright law: Fair use, and parody.

"Fair use" does not consist of making the entire album availble for digital copying. Neither does parody.

This is because the RIAA does not, in fact, speak for the artists, but for the record companies, who believe they own the songs.

Legally, they do...

[wizzler]

Incidentally, since you have pointed out the two exceptions to copyright -- fair use and parody -- you must be implicitly acknowledging that in all other cases full rights are retained by the copyright holder.

Explain, then, why you're OK with P2P downloading. It can only be that you:

1. Think P2P downloading is fair use.
2. Think P2P downloading is parody.
3. Know that P2P downloading is wrong, and don't care.

Only (3) is a possible answer, because (1) and (2) are provably wrong.