Judge: File-swapping tools are legal !!!!

CNET ^ | 4/25/2004 | John Borland

[ArcLight]

A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two companies. In an almost complete reversal of previous victories for the record labels and movie studios, federal court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that Streamcast--parent of the Morpheus software--and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software. The ruling does not directly affect Kazaa, software distributed by Sharman Networks, which has also been targeted by the entertainment industry.

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson wrote in his opinion, released Friday. "Grokster and Streamcast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."

[ColdSteelTalon]

Actually this makes sense. You cannot hold the makers of a tool responsible for its use or misuse.

The same argument would apply with guns. The gunmaker is not responsible if his/her guns are used in crime.

[rwfromkansas]

Of course a ton of copies are made of the one bought and put online, but the same could be done with library books if people wanted to take the time.

Amount of ease does not decide the legality of doing so like some think.

[rwfromkansas]

Do you propose getting rid of VHS machines since some people break the law?

[eno_]

All I'm saying is, you don't know what you're unleashing. it's not the free market, it's a world in which property rights are not respected.

This, too, is a canard. Real property rights are different from intellectual property, and it is a bad idea to confuse and conflate them. The entire (as stated in the Constitution) purpose of IP protection is to increase the pool of unprotected public IP. That, of course, should NEVER become the goal of real property rights. Ironically, as we get obsessed with protecting Mickey Mouse forever, real property rights are eroded by taxes and regulation. It is certainly not the case that twisting IP protetction out of shape has done anything positive for real property rights.

[The Old Hoosier]

I didn't say we had to protect it forever. But if we can't even protect it for a week, then how do we increase the pool of unprotected IP?

[rwfromkansas]

$12??? I doubt it unless the amount of movies and music offered is incredible. I listen to CCM music, so I would not be interested in the secular stuff.

If no big CCM collection was offered, but the movie collection was huge, I would be willing to pay $5 a month for the movies.

[hchutch]

Holy smokes!

[keyd]

Excellent ruling.

I always thought file-sharing systems were similar to the US mail (A delivery system).

We don't sue the Post Office because someone is doing something illegal with it, we go after the people breaking the law.

[The FRugitive]

Well, that means you can kiss the recording industry--and rock music--goodbye permanently.

If it's the end of crappy commercial music that gives these airheaded minstrels a platform for inane political commentary that sounds great.

Certainly people will still create music.

[The Old Hoosier]

I like being able to put together a collection of songs I like.

...and that I don't have to pay for. This is one of America's moral blind spots.

[MattGarrett]

Well then you make my point, which is - if the price is right, you'd be willing to pay a monthly fee to access songs and movies for download. The price isn't really the issue. It's the business model.

As for listening to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) - the beauty of it is that you could taylor your downloads to your taste. And if they didn't offer it, you could always go to another site that does and pay them.

The amount isn't the issue here. The fact is, if the access is there - most people are willing to pay for it.

You'll always have the pirates, granted. But that isn't ever likely to change.

But what else isn't likely to change is that there will be a segment of the audience which will never go to the trouble to buy the hardware and then learn to do it. They'll always go to a music store or video store to buy what they want.

The RIAA and MPAA would do well to avoid the waste in legal fees and embrace the trend. It's what they're audience wants. And they will pay for it - if it's affordable. And the RIAA/MPAA could conceivable SAVE money in packaging - shipping - and a host of other fees which some with distribution.

But, they've learned NOTHING from the cassette/videotape lawsuits which they spent millions trying to prevent the technology and then MADE BILLIONS as a result of it.

And they'll do the same thing here.

$12??? I doubt it unless the amount of movies and music offered is incredible. I listen to CCM music, so I would not be interested in the secular stuff. If no big CCM collection was offered, but the movie collection was huge, I would be willing to pay $5 a month for the movies.

[rwfromkansas]

Yes, I am frugal. But, if I could pay $5 a month to download all the songs I wanted instead of sometimes the limited nature of Kazaa, I would pay for it.

Call me silly for not wanting to pay 15 bucks for a CD with one song I like.

[BJungNan]

By your reasoning, cars should be illegal because people use them to rob banks.

There are legitimate reasons people share and swap files. Because you have a problem with people stealing your material using programs that allow file sharing is no reason I should have to suffer the loss of my rights.

I'm not copying your music. I do swap files from my computer to other computers (my files, not yours).

Solve your problem without creating a problem for others. There are ways. You just want the easy way out which is to force everyone to do you work for you and get the courts to okay it.

Is copying music a problem? Yes. Is it my problem? No.

[Crusher138]

Funny you should say that...

There was an article in our local Sun-Sentinel newspaper a couple of weeks back about how record companies are releasing "super" CD/DVDs. These audio disks have special encoding for special players that take advantage of surround sound systems. Some also include video snippets and other premium content. They also don't cost much more than regular CD's.

Such is the future of the music industry. Added value that is not easily copied. Give them something extra and they will pay something extra...

[Chemist_Geek]

Basic human nature means people are always looking for something fresh and new - they would really like to get out and see young performers instead of the decrepit older acts (like Great White) trolling the local music clubs.

Uhh, that's not necessarily true. How many people were in that club for the Great White show, again?

[dmz]

i doubt very much that steve forbert (who can write a nice tune) would even begin to compare himself favorably to bob dylan. I would further bet that steve counts dylan as one his major influences.

This from the very website you asked us to go to:

"Forbert was signed to Nemperor Records (a Columbia subsidiary), and his debut record, Alive On Arrival, was released in 1978. Like a lot of other talented singer/songwriters who happened to play acoustic guitar and a harp-on-a-rack, Forbert was hailed by critics and promoters alike as yet another “next Dylan.” "

[bvw]

"The Trend of Free Music"

Like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, the troubadours, the minstrels, folk song, blues, arsa nova, bossa nova, etc. etc. etc. The way music ever has been.

Except since the early 1900's when some tin pan alley goons stole it away, The goons have been stealing ever since.

But now

We are back to free music. You hear it -- you own it. Sing it again, Sam. Play "Happy Birthday to You" for Elsa!

[BlazingArizona]

Well, that means you can kiss the recording industry--and rock music--goodbye permanently.

Hardly, since every other court decision on file trading has gone to the dark side. The RIAA has enough money to have this one judge declared a lone crank, then push their case all the way to the United Nations, if that's what it takes.

[Stopislamnow]

I'd love to see the recording industry toasted.

Might help revive live music venues, good bars and lots of downtown areas across the US.

[ThinkDifferent]

Maybe if they'd let people pay to download one song, instead of forcing people to buy the whole album at $18

Watch for the introduction of Apple's pay-to-download music service on Monday.