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."

[firewalk]

bttt

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

[Giddyupgo]

I wish they had done that with Napster.....I sure miss it.

[george wythe]

it means you can kiss the recordng industry's and rock music's outdated business model good-bye.

Music will always be here

Correct.

Let the marketing gurus loose and unleash the power of the market forces.

You will see business models that convince people to buy music using different formats.

For example, "free" products like potable water are being sold for a premium in the form of "spring" water or "clear" water. One of the most expensive brands, Dasani, admits in its label that it is just municipal water.

Or look at how many people are loyal to AOL even when dialup Internet access is free or much cheaper from other providers.

The Chicken Little types are just rigid oldtimers who do not want or do not know how to adapt to the new market.

[The Old Hoosier]

No one pays for what they can get for free. We now can get free music with CD quality. Therefore, no one except very honest, scrupulous people will pay.

Soon, there will be no money to be made in music. So people won't be able to make a living writing or recording it.

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.

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.

[The Red Zone]

The industry is going to have to sue infringers for actual infringements. A few ugly examples will not stop the song stealing party altogether but it will dampen it. Even if it loses the Verizon case, the industry still would be able to have a judge issue a force-identification subpoena for downloaders or sharers from a sting operation. Isn't the Verizon case ultimately about the DMCA self serve subpoenas?

[dark_lord]

Yes, but think about it: the very minute my band publishes a song, I no longer can charge anyone for it, because it is already FREE on the internet. So who can make a living writing or playing music?

This is the same problem facing anyone who tries to produce software for money. I suggest some ways to make money for musicians in this situation:

(1) Give the music away on the Internet. Charge for giving concerts.
(2) Make the music available for free on your website. Charge for tee-shirts, coffee cups, and anything else you can "brand."
(3) Sell music to PC & video game makers as background and scene music.
(4) Provide music as scene music to "indy" film makers for "free" in exchange for a cut of the take. Which means a cut of the video tape sales and rental income.

[kevao]

Those who bootleg can still be prosecuted.

Even if I do the bootlegging in my bedroom? What about my constitutional right to privacy?

[William McKinley]

heh heh heh heh heh.

Not sure if you know this or not, but I have been heavily involved in a debate or two over that whole affair, so your comment really gave me a chuckle :-)

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't even necessarily object to the death of the industry--my favorite bands are broken up already.

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.

[Billy_bob_bob]

Hello? Did you read my post? Did you see the part where I said that EVERY song that I have downloaded was GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE! Every single one. I have stolen NOTHING, and I demand you retract your allegation.

Furthermore, I am an artist myself, I give away my music for free because I choose to. I like the idea of being able to give away free music to anyone who wants to download it. If I made my living from music then I would choose to try to sell it, but since it is a hobby of mine I choose to give it away for free. Do you have a problem with that as well?

[KevinB]

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.

Bingo. For an example, check out www.steveforbert.com. This guy is what Bob Dylan would be if he (Bob Dylan) had any talent and yet he gets no promotion and is lucky if he sells 10,000 copies of a new release.

[William McKinley]

That may be true, but unless I am reading things wrong here, the judge said that under the law as it is written, the products are ok.

The answer to me is, if it is a problem, then the laws should be changed.

I don't like when courts change (or expand) laws.

[The Old Hoosier]

Did you see the part where I said that EVERY song that I have downloaded was GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE!

LOL, I wasn't necessary implicating you--I do the same, although I think we may be the only ones on the planet.

I'm speaking in general here.

But do point us to your music, so we can download.

TOH

[KevinB]

Exactly right. Check out www.patdinizio.com (Pat DiNizio being the leader of the Smithereens) and see how he's doing it. Very creative!

[=Intervention=]

Wrong. It means you can kiss one means of distributing and creating music goodbye (megacompanies/limited outlets/limited storefront). Not all. Wake up.

[The Old Hoosier]

The answer to me is, if it is a problem, then the laws should be changed. I don't like when courts change (or expand) laws.

I agree, me neither. But I think I'm definitely in the minority on this thread arguing that an "open" music industry is a bad thing. It's not a good thing if you believe in private property, contractual integrity, or the creation of new music.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

Any release on the public airwaves, i.e. radio play, is an intentional release of the waveforms of music into the public domain and cannot be protected by copyright. If this is done at least once, the sounds themselves are transferred to the public domain. Its the same as a person reading a copyrighted book on a streetcorner, the sounds of the words cannot be subjected to copyright, but the book as a work can be. You can however copyright the whole CD as a artistic work, the graphics on the CD, the case it came in. One cannot reproduce or counterfit the CD in toto without violating the copyright. Therefore music sharing of the waveforms of previously aired matererial is beyond copyright protections.

[The Old Hoosier]

No, it means you can kiss the incentive to create music goodbye.

[kevao]

Surely he's not comparing bootlegging to homosexuality, is he?