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."

[freedumb2003]

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

1. No, just the the way they do business
2. Even if 1. is wrong, no great loss. Music has stunk since 1971 anyway.

[tallhappy]

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

We can only hope.

Unfortunately, this is not going to be the case.

[ImphClinton]

Right of coures they can NOT exist anyway.

After all their demise was assured in 1966 when the Real to Real became common place. Again in 1972 with the cassette. Again in 1974 with the 8-track.

They survived that and more and will survive this as well. If they really wanted to sell more CD's they would lower prices. Insteae they raised they by 8% this year them complained sales were down. Well wonder why? Everyone elses were down as well. Even those that lowered prices.

[KevinB]

i doubt very much that steve forbert (who can write a nice tune) would even begin to compare himself favorably to bob dylan.

Thanks for taking the time to go to the site. I have no stake in Steve Forbert, I'm just a fan using him as an example of an immensely talented guy who's having a tough time in the music business as it currently exists.

In terms of the comparison to Dylan, I saw a review of one of Steve's albums in a major publication (I forget which publication) where the writer said that Steve Forbert is what Dylan would be if Dylan had talent. I happened to agree because I think Forbert has the same lyrical gift yet his songs are far more accessible.

[freedumb2003]

And like every other improper ruling the 9th makes, it will be overturned.

Small restatement:

And like every other ruling the 9th makes, it is improper and will be overturned.

[visualops]

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

Good riddance.

[ThinkDifferent]

This is one of America's moral blind spots.

I understand your argument, but the music industry has no moral high ground at all. They've been convicted of price fixing, routinely screw artists out of the profits from their work, bought legislation that circumvents the "limited times" language of the Constitution, and have tried to criminalize technology simply because it could be used for illegal purposes (which is true of nearly everything). I'm not going to argue that downloading copyrighted music is ethical, but I can't get too upset about it either.

[The Old Hoosier]

Those media are low quality. People would rather buy it so it sounds decent.

Not any more.

[LayoutGuru2]

Hey, I like some of that Limp Bizkit stuff. I wouldn't call it "great art", but I have a few of their MP3s on my JukeBox.

[Tauzero]

"So who can make a living writing or playing music?"

As always, those that can find a patron.

The nature of the patron may very well change.

[herkbird]

The biggest shame to me in this great country built on capitalism. The younger generations are ruining it because they are cheaters, lazy, and CHEAP. Why should we tip waitresses, there's no law that says we have to, we do it because of respect.

The loss of respect for the really good artist is rapidly changing the scenery of the music industry. If you want to hear any of the true old time Country and Western artist anymore, you have to go to Branson, Missouri,sp. They have great new hits, but you never hear them on the radio anymore, a real shame. They never go on tour, you have to drive to see them. Same thing with the Stars in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the price to get in these shows is no bargain.

I don't see how you just say good bye to Rock-N-Roll, every type of music is being raped by this epidemic of people being too cheap to pay for legally recorded copies. For those who complain that an album has only one good song in the entire package, shame on the artist for ripping you off. It's a shame that singles are not pushed like in the past. I guess that's capitalism at its' best and worst sides. Wouldn't everyone like to have a ONE HIT WONDER to live on for the rest of their life?

I got just a little off track from the main subject, cheaters, lazy, and cheap. If you don't have to pay for really good music, it dies as we know it. If you can steal music, why not shoplift, rob banks, and kill people.

The real disgrace is the loss of respect for someones hard work and effort. I'm sure 99.9% of the people stealing this music would scream and raise holy hell if there way of making a living was stolen from them by someone who is too lazy and cheap to buy their product legally.

[Almondjoy]

Concerts.. shows.. and other gigs is what will keep the business moving on. Plus you will always have radio. Advertisers might end up taking the brunt of this decision. I'm all for it though. You can't ban file swaping programs. It's great for all kinds of things including 200 meg picture files that you can't dump into a hotmail account.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

And this ruling happened after the record companies bribed Bubba Klinton to help get the laws changed ridiculously in their favor and deputized the FBI to be enforcers. I'll bet the record companies are pissed what with all they money they spent on bribing campaign contributions and gifts for government officials.

[GretchenEE]

I really think that the current situation is much inferior to what we might get should things open up. There are lots of bands that are very good, yet they get very little publicity or income because the big companies promote a handful of groups that are part of the "in" crowd.

The music recording industry is a carbon copy of the defunct movie studio model. When the studios lost their influence, and stranglehold, this wing of the entertainment industry found new and very creative life.

[GretchenEE]

remeber = remember

I just thought you were typing with a cold.

[Technogeeb]

I really think that the current situation is much inferior to what we might get should things open up. There are lots of bands that are very good, yet they get very little publicity or income because the big companies promote a handful of groups that are part of the "in" crowd.

This is the central reason the recording industry and those who control that industry have been fighting the file-sharing systems so much. It breaks their monopoly on being able to define much of modern culture. Music is more than just an industry; it not only reflects the philosophy and behavior of society, but affects it as well.

And yet these people have successfully lobbied the congress to set that "limited time" to virtually forever. It's an abuse of the copyright principle in the Constitution.

Well said.

[GretchenEE]

It seems this whole argument is being defined down to one basic tenet: adapt or perish.

[The Old Hoosier]

Yes, you will be the patron, through the NEA.

[Tauzero]

"So people won't be able to make a living writing or recording it."

Which is not quite the same thing as saying they will not write or record music.

"So enjoy the free music you're stealing, because as soon as artists stop writing songs--the logical economic conclusion of this ruling--then people will not get music for free any more."

Artists generally do what they do because they have a passion for it. If they produce works of art that other people enjoy, they will paid for it, as they always have been paid for it.

"It's the same argument for prescription drugs: if you make them free or force them to be cheap by refusing to respect trademarks (a la Canada), then no one will develop new drugs."

It's not the same at all. The motivations for producing drugs are very different.

Not too long ago, historically, a composer's work was not protected at all like today, and there was no means at all to record it. The artists then were worse off, from the standpoint of intellectual property,than artists of today, even with this latest ruling. Yet this dismal period saw some of the finest music ever produced by Western civilization, by such men as Mozart.

The claim that there will be "no new music" is just ludicrous.

[SamAdams76]

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

Oh please! Don't be so melodramatic. There was a huge music industry before recordings and there will continue to be after recordings (as we know them) pass from the scene. Speaking of rock bands, there are hundreds of good rock bands who never got that big record deal. Yet they make a damn good living doing concerts. In fact, even the superstars make more money in concerts than they do from recordings. That's why you have old farts like Mick Jagger pathetically shaking his 60-year-old ass on stage for $100 a pop. That's where the money is - the Stones sure aren't selling a lot of copies of "Beggars Banquet" these days.

If anything, file sharing has given lesser known bands a chance to become more widely recognized. Case in point, I recently bought a CD at Amazon.com from a group called "The Reverend Horton Heat." Awesome stuff (if you like full-throttle George Thorogood-type supercharged blues/rock). They've been around for 10 years but I never heard of them until I stumbled across one of their MP3s while searching for something else. Now I will probably buy more albums from this band thanks to the file-sharing that is supposedly ruining the recording industry.

But I can see where the major labels are complaining. For instance, they can no longer put out a hit song and then sell us a $15 album of mostly crap. We can now download the other tracks on the album and if they don't measure up, guess what? We don't get the album. And why should we? In the long term, recording artists are going to have to just put out better albums that we will actually want to buy (or download for a fee).

Personally I think the CD is going to go the way of the vinyl record pretty soon. This is how I see the recording industry evolving:

Increasingly, radios, stereos, etc., will contain hard drives - or "music" sticks - that can easily be removed and reprogrammed from a computer (or a kiosk, which I will talk about later). These music sticks will hold thousands of songs. Instead of selling albums, the recording industry - or whatever passes for it in the future - will sell "downloading rights." Consumers will be able to purchase downloading rights directly from the record label or from a "middleman" that is acting as a sales agent for the record label (much like the function a record store serves today). Consumers can either purchase the downloading rights to entire albums or individual tracks a la carte. Of course, they will be able to sample the MP3s first from any of the file-sharing services such as KaZaa or Morpheus.

Once the consumer has purchased downloading rights, he/she can either download the music files directly from a website or they can bring their "music stick" into a store or kiosk and download to it directly.

What is the advantage of doing this as opposed to downloading and keeping the free MP3s? Well, once one has purchased downloading rights, he/she will have the right to download it whenever they want and how ever many times they want. So if you lose your Walkman, you can buy a new "music stick" and instantly download the music you have already purchased onto it at the point of purchase. For you will have an account on file with all the music you have purchased. So whether you own 10 songs or 5000 songs, you will always be able to stop at one of these kiosks (sort of like a ATM machine) and fill your music stick with these songs (or download them off the web thought this would take much longer).

I believe that people would pay for this convenience rather than go through the hassle of finding the MP3s online. Imagine if you stored 5000 MP3s on your computer and your hard drive crashed? Now you would have to individually search and download each song and then you would have to play it back to ensure its integrity. What a major hassle! It would take you weeks. But had you already owned the downloading rights to this music, you could go to a kiosk and blast those songs into a music stick in about 15 minutes over a Firewire or similarly fast connection.

That is the wave of the future.