Posted on 04/25/2003 11:59:07 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
Meanwhile independent record labels would be free to continue to use the old obsolete non-piracy-protected technologies like CD's and MP3's.
Seems to me that would be the perfect solution. Big record companies die, they can no longer afford to bribe congresscritters to pass unconstitutional garbage, and the rest of the country lives in freedom.
Right, but not all of it. The "phone home" behavior is generally worse with "free" software than with paid-for software, though there are some exceptions.
I think a lot has to do with the question of respect someone alluded to before. People don't like to see those they respect stiffed by cheapskates, but they rejoice when they see those they view as crooks get their comeuppance.
Exactly. If one has something -- food, clothes, money -- and it is taken without his consent or due process, it is theft. It always was wrong and always will be wrong regardless of what the law says.
On the other hand, if one has something and one wants to give to someone else it is only "theft" if the law defines it as such. Once the law is changed nobody can call it "theft."
And if the law is unenforceble or fails to make sense to the average person, it is not going to be obeyed anyway.
Why do you suppose record companies spend huge sums of money to have radio stations play their music? Bear in mind that many common audio systems are quite capable of recording music off the radio.
Yeah, but it sounds like crap, and the deejays make a point of talking as the song begins and ends so that you can't use it.
Not true. You can't just take someone's corn and magically turn it into a lifetime supply. This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves, stealing music they would otherwise have to buy. And I'm not talking about people who only download unprotected music, or even the ones who use MP3s to decide what to buy.
People come up with all kinds of arguments to justify stealing music because it soothes their consciences. If it weren't for these personal moral issues, I would be very surprised to see conservatives on a conservative forum arguing against the right to private property--even in the name of capitalism, for crying out loud.
That certainly used to be the case. Many stations no longer do that, though.
Consider the following two groups of people:
I think it would be fair to say that among the first group of people above, the availability of downloadable music will increase the amount of music they purchase; among the latter group, it will decrease it.
Although there are certainly some exceptions, the general impression I get is that the people who buy music despite (or because of) the availability of downloads are apt to be the ones who would be inclined to spend more money on music than those who, because of downloads, don't buy music.
I have sometimes heard it lamented that much of the use of Stephen Collins Foster didn't net him a dime. One of the great American songwriters, but he never got rich. On the other hand, I would posit that if people had to pay royalties any time they sang his music, it would never have gotten anyhwere near the popularity it achieved. And the fact that he never got rich from his music nor had any realistic expectation of doing so hardly deterred SCF from writing it.
First of all, many of us here do actually believe in buying music which is worth owning. Whether or not it's legal to download a few tracks from an album before deciding "hey this is cool" and buying it or "hey this is junk" and deleting it, I don't think any reasonable moral objection can be made to that particular practice. And of course neither moral nor legal objections can be made to the practice of downloading music from legal advertiser-supported sites.
As for the condemnation or lack thereof of those who download music with the intention of using it on an ongoing basis without ever paying for it, I think a large part of that goes back to the concept that predates or modern legal system--that public support comes with respect. If a man who routinely bullied everyone in town got robbed, he'd find far less sympathy and support than a man who respected and was respected by the townspeople.
Finally, many here are opposed to the record companies because we refuse to do anything to assist in their efforts to rob or restrict the freedom of the American people. Garbage like the DMCA gives the record companies far more ability to rape the American people than its absense gives file-sharers. And the royalty on blank music CD's, which hits those who use audio recording equipment to record their own music while ignoring those who use computers to burn downloaded CD's--that's just plain robbery.
You can't do the same with a song either. After a few hundred or so listens you want something new.
This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves,
That's according to the law. If you change the law they are no longer thieves. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be protections against someone else taking credit for another's work or marketing it without compensation.
But traditionally, if you buy something it belongs to you which means it is your's to give away.
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.