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."

[The Old Hoosier]

If the price is right and the product is desirable, the free market will reign.

Yeah, I get it. What you're saying is, if marauders come out of the hills and steal my crops every year, that's part of the free market.

The "free market" only stays free with guarantees that the government will protect our God-given property rights. If no one respects those rights, then no one will build or create, because they will get nothing out of it.

THAT'S the law of "free market capitalism," it's totally incompatible with anarchy.

[The Old Hoosier]

What part do you think was due to "royal patrons"? All of it?

Everything that was good enough that we still have it--all the classical and baroque composers--with the exception of folk music.

[The Old Hoosier]

The desire to create new music is not a function of private property rights or contractual integrity.

I agree. The ability to create new music is a function of private property rights and contractual integrity.

[The Old Hoosier]

The music to which people actually listen will be paid for by private parties, as it has always been.

Nope, it won't be paid for, because you'll be getting it for free.

[The Old Hoosier]

I know scores of people who say they will never buy a CD again. And they don't have to, because they can get anything for free. This has to have an impact somewhere.

[Michael2001]

God gave rock n roll to you

[eno_]

I know scores of people who say they will never buy a CD again. And they don't have to, because they can get anything for free. This has to have an impact somewhere.

Yes, the record labels will disappear. Who will miss them?

[nina0113]

I think Jimmy Buffet was one of those that did not, and sold his stuff via the web directly for nearly free. He realized that he makes his real money touring

He's doing pretty well out of those $8 margaritas in Margaritaville, too. Also the gift shop.

[The Old Hoosier]

People who care about contractual and property rights will miss them.

People who wrote music and sold it to them with royalty rights will miss them.

Musicians who don't want to work day jobs will miss them.

I don't expect to convince anyone. I'm afraid that there's always some moral baggage that goes along with downloading and burning CD's with thousands and thousands of free (stolen) songs.

[AmericanDave]

I am always buying cd's of artists who's songs I have heard first on mp3. It exposes me to more music that I NEVER would have bought without that free exposure. I just bought 3 albums for (an exorbitant) $45 only one album of wich I used to have on vinyl record. The other two I grew to like from MP3 file sharing. If the music industry wasn't ripping me off with their new cd prices, I wouldn't feel the need to sample music before purchasing, but at $15 pr CD, I have to.

[Jhoffa_]

I hate pirating..

But it seems the judge is correct.

Just because you CAN use a car to rob a bank, should cars be outlawed as a result?

What's going to happem is all the napster theives and small time crooks are going to get ALL OF US slapped with embedded copy protection.. Then when you want to share that picture of Aunt Martha, you're going to have to jump through hoops.

[keyd]

Yeah, I get it. What you're saying is, if marauders come out of the hills and steal my crops every year, that's part of the free market.

No it's not part of the free market. If marauders come and steal your crops you go after the marauders, not the companies who made their gun, clothes, car, and whatever else they used to help them steal your crops.

[AmericanDave]

You realy believe that those poor artists are going to be put out of buisness? I pay for what I could get for free; but I can sample music to see IF i want to pay an outrageous $15 for a new CD; and I do once I've sampled good music.....

[The Old Hoosier]

You should go back and read my whole post, and the whole post I was responding to, while you're at it.

What is at issue is not so much this decision as the direction of commercial music.

[Tribune7]

What you're saying is, if marauders come out of the hills and steal my crops every year, that's part of the free market

A better analogy would be selling the corn with a restriction prohibiting the customer from sharing it with dinner guests, which he ignores.

[eno_]

People who care about contractual and property rights will miss them. Why? For the examples of fraud and abuse the record labels provide?

People who wrote music and sold it to them with royalty rights will miss them. I am a published author. I know some small-time musicians who have record contracts. I know the terms of both book and record contracts. Compared with standard practice in book publishing, record contracts start from a position of defrauding the musician. Only musicians with clout get good deals, or any royalty checks. Don't give me a line about the contracts being consensual. Record labels are a crooked industry, and contracts in almost every other commercial pursuit are far far more honest. Trash hauling contracts in New Jersey are cleaner.

Musicians who don't want to work day jobs will miss them. True only for the ones that are actually making money from recordings. This is a tiny fraction even of musicians with record contracts. 99.999% of the world's musicians will never feel a difference.

[The Old Hoosier]

Record labels are a crooked industry, and contracts in almost every other commercial pursuit are far far more honest.

Oh, I guess that makes it right then.

[eno_]

Or perhaps more aptly, selling corn with an unsigned implied contract, backed by a draconian law, forbidding the buyer to use it to plant corn, which is then ignored.

Surely that is just thumbing one's nose at both an assinine contract and an asinine law. And surely one can do that without it leading to widespread lawlessness.

[supercat]

Don't give me a line about the contracts being consensual.

Pre-file sharing, musicians had two choices:

• Sign with a big record label, get a few cents from every CD sold, and be stuck everything from the company store, ending up with little money even after achieving moderate popularity and selling many thousands or even millions of CD's.
• Find an independent label (or start one's own), get 25% or more on CD royalties--in real money (well, at least until Uncle takes it). Unfortunately, end up with little money as the big record producers will shut you out of radio airplay. No money and no sales.

Great choices, huh? Were there other choices available, few musicians would bother signing with the big record labels. That's what the big record labels are really afraid of.

[WOSG]

" Hey hey my my,
Rock 'n Roll will never die," ...
especially if you can now freely download Neil Young to your hearts content.