Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision 435

Posted by timothy from the how-totally-amazing dept.
The Hobo writes "It's official: Hollywood studios and record companies on Friday asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn a controversial series of recent court decisions that have kept file-swapping software legal." (Previous /. coverage here.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision More

RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

Comments Filter:

  • Finally (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The story is here. It appeared then vanished again, just to show up once more before disappearing into the void.
    But now it's here! Lets party!

  • Can't they just... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mori Chu ( 737710 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:31PM (#10496212)
    Can't they just slip the P2P ban into Patriot Act II? It'd be much easier for me; I could concentrate my hatred in one place.

  • Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:31PM (#10496214)
    The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

    The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

    The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

    The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

    • There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

      Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.

      Of course, you

      • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PigeonGB ( 515576 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:58PM (#10496523) Homepage
        Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.

        In any case, no one wants to rip off musicians or the people who are employed by the RIAA. The Internet provides a chance for innovation and new ways to market products, and the RIAA is very slowly getting with the times.

        I could copy music, and I can do so legally. Companies exist, such as audiolunchbox.com, that allow me to not only download songs but buy them. If the RIAA actually decided to make use of what its customers would already be willing to use, and didn't gouge them with high prices and lawsuits, perhaps they wouldn't be complaining about "theft".

        You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally, so your analogy doesn't stand. Your statement makes it sound like copying is immoral by itself, which it is not.

        To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy.

        • You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally

          Nope, nor can you copy w/o permission. If a stranger on the street gives permission, it ain't robbery. So, you are correct: When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

          To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy

          Oh, come on. I'm trying to make a point here, not have a pissing contest, or flamewar.
          • I know you were trying to make a point. But the way you left it made it sound like copying was equal to mugging someone or committing fraud.

            Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

            When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

            Two different statements. One is wro

        • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dougmc ( 70836 )

          Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends.

          It was. It was called fair use.

          Now, things like the DMCA have changed the rules for digital media. I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree.

          The usu

          • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:4, Informative)

            by nsayer ( 86181 ) <{moc.ufk} {ta} {reyasn}> on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:07PM (#10498795) Homepage
            It's called the `DAT tax'

            It's more properly called the Audio Home Recording Act [virtualrecordings.com]. It is the giant upon whose shoulders the DMCA is perched. At the time it was passed, it did not get nearly the outrage and attention it should have (that does not imply that it didn't get tons of both - it did, but passed anyway). It was the mechanism by which the Rio got hassled (the Rio escaped by the skin of its parallel cable - the fact that it was a computer peripheral was all that spared it). The AHRA, I believe, is every bit as horrible as INDUCE threatens to be today.

          • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:38PM (#10499060)

            "It was. It was called fair use."

            Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

            "I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree."

            Also interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? If you would like to see what US law says about "fair use" (as opposed to the common Slashdot misunderstandings), Here's the link [copyright.gov]. Ivan Hoffman also has an excellent article [ivanhoffman.com] about Napster's failed attempt to defend their actions as fair use. pdinfo.com addresses the specific issue of music and fair use here [pdinfo.com] ; they write "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

            So, if you've found a law that makes it okay to copy my friend's CDs onto cassette tapes, please post the links. In either case, there's an important difference between "under the radar" copyright violation (making copies of your friends CDs in small quantities) for which nobody will get on your case, vs. activities which are truly "fair use."

            "Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ..."

            That's counter to the popular understanding of how it works. It's explained here [copyright.gov] (Google is indeed great for finding instances of that retarded "the RIAA gets a cut" meme, but for stuff like this, just going to the actual law book will save a lot of wasted time). The vast majority of the money goes to artists, composers and musicians -- who, I should add, generally aren't paid enough. A small percentage goes to record companies. None goes directly to the RIAA.

      • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

        I think Rosa Parks would disagree with you.

        Perhaps comparing the civil rights movement with copyright is a bit of a stretch, but I think the example still stands.

        I do not feel I am under any obligation to follow 'rules' that I consider wrong. Of course, I consider murder, fraud, and robbery wrong. Most
        • Yeah, I knew the civil rights issue would come up. And yeah, it's a hell of a stretch... I'd wager that treating people like subhumans and copying the latest Backstreet Boys are not _quite_ analogous.

          Also, it could be argued that the basic laws of the country (remember the 'all men are created equal' bit) were being violated by denying black folks civil rights.

          It's called an implied social contract. You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequenc

      • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LordK2002 ( 672528 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:00PM (#10496549)
        If enough people agree, they'll change.
        Wrong.

        If enough people with money and influence agree, they'll change.

        There is a huge difference.

      • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:5, Funny)

        by what the dumple is ( 682010 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:03PM (#10496589)
        That's the point. We don't want them to produce anything.

        I'm out of a high paying cush-y tech job and I want everybody to feel my pain. Muhahahaha! What? Some record exec can't feed his family? Guess what! Neither can I! See you at the food bank.
      • Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

        Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

        And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to ch

      • Re:Look, it's simple... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yebyen ( 59663 )
        Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

        The 'rules' of society are the rules that a majority of society follows. If a majority of society is breaking a rule, then it's not a rule of society anymore. If a majority of some subset of society is breaking a rule, and if a majority of society accepts this subset's right

    • Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PigeonGB ( 515576 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:49PM (#10496416) Homepage
      While I agree on most points, it is hard to say that copying in itself hurts no one without someone freaking out that you basically said it is ok to copy things because no one gets hurt.

      You didn't say that. You're simply saying that no one lost money directly from a copy, which is the truth. Now if someone making a copy decides not to pay for something, the copyright owner has lost a potential sale, but it would be fraudulent to claim it as an actual loss.

      Here's something that the RIAA and others don't like to admit. When someone downloads an MP3, or even an album of MP3s, it doesn't prevent them from subsequently buying the album. I know plenty of someone who downloaded the Dave Mathews Band album when it was prematurely released, only to buy the CD afterwards anyway. So by the logic put forth by many like the RIAA, the RIAA broke even in terms of losses in that case. That's absurd.
    • You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay. Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault. It is an abuse. And it should be treated as such. Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's. The criminals are prosecuted. (Regardless of whether or not you feel that copyrighted material swapping is indeed a crime, either way, its NOT the p2p network's fault.)
    • These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them. Even though no direct loss occurs, their copyright is still being violated.

      Unfortunately, the members of the **AA abused the market, and now the invisible hand is tearing them a new one. This is nothing more and nothing less than the market attempting to bring the price down to what people are willing to pay.

      Anyone that know

      • Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:03PM (#10496592) Homepage
        These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them.

        Not necessarily. Copyright owners don't actually have any "rights". What they have are privileges, granted by congress based on a mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

        It may be some of the privileges granted to copyright owners may be in the best interests of promoting the useful arts and sciences; but if we begin to fall into the misconception that the copyright system exists for the copyright owners' benefit, we are making a big mistake.

        I'd say artists have to a certain degree a right to be compensated for use of their work, but I'd say saying copyright owners get complete and total control over exactly how copyrighted material is used is something which benefits no one at all except the owners of the RIAA and MPAA corporations.
    • In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

      ... and you'll argue this "no loss" defense until you have some significant work of your own, of intellectual nature - a book, music, software, database, etc...

      Really, copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers, it's about offering producers choice about their works. They can give it away, license it, or keep it carefully to themselves.

      With the exception of th

    • Lost profits are considered a loss under U.S. law when someone has wrongfully caused a business to lose customers. In order to get damages for such loss, the amount must be reasonably determinable, otherwise the plaintiff business can likely only obtain an injunction.

      The question is emphatically NOT "what should copyright cover?" The law says what copyright covers. The question in these cases is whether or not Grokster and StreamCast actually are liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringeme
    • You miss some points well.

      1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that t

      • 2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.

        Except in this specific example, the bookseller simply rips the cover off the book and returns the cover to the publisher fo

    • Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gbnewby ( 74175 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:32PM (#10496839) Homepage
      A good question is whether shared items are copyrighted, and if they are whether they're licensed for redistribution (as is often the case for individual artists & writers), and if they are copyrighted and not licensed does the RIAA/MPAA legally represent the copyright holder (if not, it's MYOB under Title 17 U.S.C. [cornell.edu]).

      Project Gutenberg contributed an amici brief with Prelinger & the Internet Archive. We welcome the opportunity to show how the use of p2p for legitimate copyright-free works has grown since we wrote the brief (and it was large then, already).

      With the help of Magnetlinks [magnetlinks.org] (an open standard), all of the Gutenberg content is now available for direct download to enabled p2p programs via the Gutenberg search page [gutenberg.net]. This is very cool, and helps our free eBooks to get around. If you use p2p software, consider sharing Project Gutenberg content in your "shared items" location.

      On a somewhat different note, to anticipate a frequent /. contribution: it is still quite unclear whether individual readers (or listeners) violate copyright when they view/read an item for personal non-commercial use in many situations. For example, if you own a print copy of Orwell's 1984 and are in the US (where it's still copyrighted), is it legal for you to view the online copy of 1984 from Project Gutenberg of Australia? Or, if you are in Holland, can you view James Joyce's Ulysses from Project Gutenberg even though it still has copyright protection in life+70 countries? What if you already own a copy of the book? The core issue, yet to be decided for any media I can think of, is what happens when you purchase an "item" - did you purchase a right to use the item in various forms, or some piece of plastic or dead tree? The MPAA/RIAA & like-minded companies want all the benefits, so that if you lose your dead tree you need to buy another one (because you don't have the rights to the intellectual creation, just the crud it was printed on), but if you want to put a CD on your MP3 player you can't (because you own the piece of plastic, not a license to the music). The intersection between fair use, licensing and Title 17 (particularly the DMCA extensions) has not been addressed fully, and overlaps with issues like the applicability of EULAs. There's lots of work yet to be done.

  • Go figure (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    This is nothing new, and expected..

    • Re:Go figure (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      At least a couple of moderators hadn't expected your revelation that this is nothing new, and was expected. "What insight!", they cried.

  • Story (Score:5, Funny)

    by KaSkA101 ( 692931 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:32PM (#10496221) Homepage
    This story needs to disapear again just like the RIAA and MPAA

  • Don't blame the tool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:32PM (#10496223) Homepage Journal
    Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal. **AA needs a grip on reality. Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue.
    • Carrying crowbars, knives, screwdrivers is an offense.

      http://www.police-law.co.uk/law/policelaw.nsf/0/ 2f a0cfe7d9867e6480256baa005c13bf?OpenDocument

      It all depends on intent and use.

    • Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal.

      Playing devil's advocate here but RIAA would say that most knives are not used to murder people, while most P2P apps are used to share copyrighted works without permission - just like most cars are used to violate speed limits and other laws - so it's the auto manufacturers that should also be put out of business.
      • "Most" is a very strong word that I think fails to factor in the numerous uses of p2p software that is 1. totally legal or 2. falls within fair use.

        I think my downloading and posession of SNES roms for which I own the cartridge and CDs for which I own copies of is defendable in court, but IANAL. Even if illegal, it's certainly moral, and the law should be changed.
    • Could one argue that computers (operating sytem, hardware, and software) themselves are inducing people to commit copyright infringement? Without the PC, how many games/music/movies/software/etc... would be copied?

      Just because a tool can be used for illegal actions doesn't mean the tool itself is bad (as you point out with the knife example). If tools are considered responsible for criminal activities, we might as well eliminate quite a bit of the technology we use (cars, guns, knives, PCs, VCRs, baseb

  • Id10ts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ProudClod ( 752352 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:32PM (#10496224)
    "This is one of the most important copyright cases ever to reach this court," the groups said in papers filed with the court.

    Yes, but not for the reason the RIAA may think. The point is that filesharing by P2P, as demonstrated by Bittorrent distribution by many companies, is a solution to a major bandwidth problem, and as such it'd be madness to ban it because it can be used to infringe copyright - there's about as much grounds to do so as there is to ban all net file transfer activity.

  • If the software has a legitimate use ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:33PM (#10496228) Journal
    Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

    * standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *

    Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.
    • If the software has a legitimate use then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

      Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?
      Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

      .haeger

      • Perhaps not. But is there a single use for anything on the internet?
      • Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?

        How many digital cameras are used for producing porn? How many registered domain names are used for porn?

        How many handguns are used (as in fired and hit something living) for hunting or self defense versus committing a crime?

        How much marijuana is (debatably) purchased according to state laws versus illegally purchased in states that have legal uses?

        How many people are killed by drunk drivers? Beaten by drunken spouses? How many people are r

  • Naturual Progression (Score:3, Insightful)

    by powerpuffgirls ( 758362 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:33PM (#10496230)
    With so much at stake, it's not surprising that this will eventually involve the Supreme Court. However if this is once again ruled against them, they will have serious problem.

  • From the original article... (Score:5, Funny)

    by neuro.slug ( 628600 ) <neuro__.hotmail@com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:33PM (#10496233)
    In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine obscene profit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the value of copyrighted work.

  • We already have a decision... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prozac79 ( 651102 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:34PM (#10496247)
    It was in the BetaMax case. Very simply, a company cannot be held responsible for illegal activity if the product has legal purposes. I think going after the individual file swappers made a lot more sense (although I have issues with the shotgun approach they are using). In any court case, someone doesn't get their way. The RIAA and MPAA have to decide... are the users at fault or are the tools at fault? They can't have it both ways!
    • You are half correct. However the concept was 'substantial non infringing use' as said by the court has become the bar from which other products have been judged.

      And yes, they can have it both ways. Not only are burglars who break into your house at fault, but so are the companies that manufacture and sell lock picking tools and make their tools widely available to the known felons.

      Welcome to the world of Tobacco Trial style liability.
    • Yep, we should keep in mind that the SCOTUS has not accepted this case, and doesn't have to. But since IANAL, I'm wondering what happens if they decline. The original ruling was in the 9th circuit court, what if I'm in the 5th? Can the RIAA sue me for writing an app they don't like? Will the precedent from the 9th circuit court generalize to others?
      • You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have

  • foo. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:34PM (#10496252)
    In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine the value of copyrighted work.

    And I say that the changes to copyright law have made copyrighted works worth more for longer than they should be. It's just as ridiculous.

    "These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability, with the full knowledge that over 90 percent of the material traversing their applications belongs to someone else," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a statement.

    Sounds like any business out there. Being able to avoid getting in trouble when their product fucks up. Isn't that what lawyers are for?

    "That case was based on the principles established in the 1984 Betamax case, which has led to the largest and most profitable period of technological innovation in this country's history. Consumers, industry and our country have all benefited as a result."

    Exactly. Current law (and the DMCA) have stiffled innovation as everyone is fearful of being sued. Let's end this non-sense and let the corporations realize that they cannot buy everyone.

  • If P2P is made illegal, then.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xeaxes ( 554292 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:36PM (#10496265)

    If P2P is made illegal, then a lot of other tools should be made illegal.

    Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

    What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

    • Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

      What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

      Er... what are YOU doing with your lawn mower?

  • INDUCE Act (Score:4, Informative)

    by PigeonGB ( 515576 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:36PM (#10496269) Homepage
    The INDUCE Act is related and should be a concern as well. Check out http://www.eff.org for more info on this bill making its way through the Senate.

  • Al Gore? (Score:5, Funny)

    by AvidProToolsDoc ( 805008 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [yrrepkyrrep]> on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:37PM (#10496273) Journal
    So when's the RIAA/MPAA going to try to sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet, and causing them to lose profits? Let's just litigate some profit back into their business model!!! Yay!!!
    • This is an example of the Republican party spreading dis-information and lies in an effort to discredit their opponents.

      The statement made by Al Gore was that he helped with funding to support the Internet. The Republican lie machine quickly shortened this up to 'Al Gore claims to have invented the internet' and spread the quote all over the media. Informed parties saw exactly what was happening, but the average joe only sees the issue being muddied up by all the distortions.

      I realize you are trying t

  • FTP, HTTP, etc (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:37PM (#10496275) Journal
    "Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," federal Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his 2003 decision. "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."

    It will be interesting to see what the arguments of the RIAA will be. What fundamentally distinguishes FTP or HTTP servers from other file sharing programs? By what critera can a programmer know if the program he is writing is illegal?

    • Re:FTP, HTTP, etc (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:40PM (#10496316) Homepage Journal
      There is no difference. I can share loads of copyrighted material on my webserver if I wanted to. The only difference? It's easier to shut that activity down. Dedicated p2p systems are harder to shut down. The technology to do this has existed for decades. Only now is it becoming mainstream. The **AA has been sitting on a failing business model for a long time. Their meddling with US legislation is merely an act of desperation out of fear of change.
    • Perhaps its time to ban gloves in case burglars use them to conceal their fingerprints.

  • I don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .l3gnaerif.> on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:39PM (#10496296) Homepage
    I don't understand how things would change if, somehow, they would win their case. OK, P2P apps are declared illegal. Majority of people who trade on these networks already know it's illegal, and do it anyway. Sure, it'll let them sue the p2p apps developpers... but they should know it's the modern version of Hydra : you cut off a head, it grows up 2 better ones. Do they really think they can get out of this without changing their (failing) business model? At least they seem to get the message lately, with all the online music stores... at last.
    • Worse yet, what could does it do to make something illegal in just one country, when there are hundreds of other countries out that that quite frankly don't give a darn about US intellectual property laws? All they can succeed in doing is driving innovation overseas.

      Personally, I don't think it's completely about economics -- it's about control. Record company executives are used to having anybody who wants to succeed kiss their ass (and lord knows what other favors). Once anybody can distribute music cheap

  • Well, it's merely a request so far. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There's nothing stopping them from making a request if they've got the money to pay for the lawyers, but it doesn't mean much. Even if they agreed to hear it, which is doubtful, they would agree with the previous decisions.
    Besides which, it is really quite irrelevant what the US Law says about P2P because P2P is only marginally concerned with the US. If the US Congress passed a law saying all people who possessed P2P software will be rounded up and executed tomorrow and the Supreme Court backed it up an

  • Be careful what you wish for... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IgD ( 232964 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:40PM (#10496309)
    This could really backfire on the music and movie industries. The supreme court might take the betamax decision to a new level. I'm all for this.

  • It might get heard. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:42PM (#10496339) Homepage Journal
    The lower courts have disagreed, the **AA shysters say, so just maybe the Supremes will take it. Unfortunately, the anti-**AA decisions have come out of the Ninth [theweeklystandard.com] Circuit, [moderateindependent.com] the most overturned court of them all. If the Supremes do take this one, it might only be to slap down those wacky guys in California [uscourts.gov], and that would be bad.

    More seriously, I'm not sure what they might do with this, but their recent Mickey Mouse decision [harvard.edu] doesn't make it look very encouraging.

    • More seriously, I'm not sure what they might do with this, but their recent Mickey Mouse decision doesn't make it look very encouraging.

      I think the Mickey Mouse decision was encouraging. In retrospect, most of the Supreme Court wasn't willing to second guess Congress there. But two members were, which means we probably have two members on our side to start with. In this case, unlike Eldred, they don't have Congress on their side, and we have solid precedent on our side. I think that may make a huge differ

    • Re:It might get heard. (Score:5, Informative)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:04PM (#10496595) Homepage Journal
      The 9th circuit is also the circuit that most frequently gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, largely because they see the most cutting-edge, controversial cases. In terms of overturned cases, though, only about 51% get overturned, about the same as almost every other circuit. Thus, you might make the argument that it is the most overturned court because their rulings are "wacky", but you would be wrong.

      In fact, as a percentage of total cases reviewed, the 5th circuit (Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi) is the most overturned circuit, not the 9th, coming in at about 60% of heard cases overturned.

  • wake up RIAA (Score:3, Funny)

    by suezz ( 804747 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:42PM (#10496351)
    why does the MPAA - RIAA wake up and get in reality. should we outlaw all cars because some wife runs over her husband on purpose. what world are they from anyway? I guess to them their all important copyrights are more valuable than lives. what a bunch of screwed up people - they need to take a break from counting all their money. lets outlaw forks and knives because someone stabbed someone to death with a fork and knife - then we have to eat with our fingers or chopsticks but then what if someone pokes somebodies eye out with a chopstick. then we are reduced to fingers. but then if you strangle someone - okay that's all I have a headache.

  • As Ani DiFranco said (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marktaw.com ( 816752 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:44PM (#10496369) Homepage
    "Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

    Starving musicians everywhere should file a class action suit against the RIAA for being used as the RIAA's defense in these cases, when we all know that the starving musicians are starving because of the RIAA's monopolistic nature & underhanded treatment of their "talent."

  • Everyone knows.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eBayDoug ( 764290 )
    I'm only stealing what I would have never paid for anyway.

  • I love this quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:49PM (#10496425)
    "These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability..."

    In other words, they're staying within the law... Oh how dare they...

  • RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonewalker ( 631203 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:55PM (#10496479)
    Look, we can get all the music we want for free, as citizens, on the radio, and all the movies we want, on cable tv. Why are they free for us? Because advertisers pay someone big money.

    So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.

  • EASY FORMULA! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:55PM (#10496481) Homepage Journal
    Start selling the CD's from $3 to $10 at most.
    People'll buy them for hundreds.

    Then, and ONLY then, they can start persecuting P2P file sharers.

    I told it before. The recording industries are NO LONGER NEEDED. They're history, and belong back in the days when making expensive vinyl records was the only way to distribute music.
    We've come to a time where new small distributors are wanting to emerge.
    Give up. Pass the flag.
    • Amen! I am much more likely to buy a band's CD directly from them at a show, for $10, than I am to go to a mega-music conglomerate and plunk down $18-24, knowing the artist is getting less than 1cent out of it. So what if I have to wait until they come around on tour? They have a website, too. :-)

  • They're trying to subvert the law ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by c.ecker ( 812382 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:56PM (#10496494)
    ... because its too hard for them to catch individuals breaking it. They're trying to get the Courts to legislate from the Bench (which is another argument entirely) and shut down all use of P2P filesharing so they can line their own pockets ...

    The courts are ruling correctly.

    What's the real reason that everyone flocks to KaZaA and Morpheus, despite the Virus, Worm and other dangers there? Because, MUSIC CDs ARE TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!

    Rather than subvert Copyright Law to their will, these folks ought to look at lowering their level of greed, so that people might be inclined to purchase a CD rather than steal one. Once you've stolen one, what's another 50 or so?

    The Movie industry caught on. I think its amazing that a movie DVD costs only twice what a Music CD does. A Music CD involves just a fraction of a fraction of the production costs -- a fraction of a fraction of the investment that a typical movie does.

    When Music CDs start selling for $2, the piracy issue will only be a nuisance. I know plenty of people selling downloaded music CDs for $5 each and making a small fortune. How many are they gonna be selling if they can only get 50 cents?

    If you're competing in a marketplace, and you don't respond well to competition, the courts can't come to your rescue -- that's not their job.

    Let's just hope the Legislators in DC don't get the idea to help ...

  • File swapping software illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antivoid ( 751399 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:56PM (#10496502) Homepage
    It's ridiculous:
    If they made file-swapping software illegal, that would mean that:
    - Windows Explorer is illegal, since you can swap files with it
    - ANY ftp client is illegal
    - Firefox/Internet explorer is illegal, because it technically has the capability to swap .html files

    I dont get it how people can demand things as "fuzzy" as this. Where do you draw the line?
  • The RIAA/MPAA was trying to push through legislation (including the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senators Hatch and Frist among others), but those bills never made it out of committee thanks in part to the tireless efforts of the consumer electronics lobby. When the legislative route failed (all the Senators are going home now), they resort to the courts again. Can anyone imagine how much money they've "invested" in lobbying and suing over this issue? Does that give you any idea how pivotal this moment is in the

  • Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:59PM (#10496531) Journal
    The Supreme court will most certainly find that any technology allowing the free communication of raw data facilitates piracy and is therefore illegal. This includes web browsers, email, phone lines, the post office, and the like. And so we should arrest or sue the providers of each. Nevermind that the constitution intended for the reach of copyrights and patents to be extremely limited. Not.

    The media lobby isn't about fighting piracy. Many P2P providers have offered proposals on how to legitimize P2P, as has happened with past technologies such as audio recording, radio, television, and vcr's. Each time publishers sued and shouted claims of "piracy" and Congress has had to step in to force a solution that doesn't involve the destruction of the new, superior technology.

    The media lobby fights to protect their control. Your music doesn't doesn't reach store shelves if they don't get a 97% cut. Yes, recording artists average about 3% in the end. Some even lose money after the hidden fees. All they want to do is get their music out, and gigs pay most of their income. Technologies like P2P offer a way to circumvent the control of the media companies over distribution.

    Most P2P traffic is piracy because the media companies have refused to cooperate in working out reasonable licensing plans, as has happened with EVERY new distribution technology that they couldn't control. As was done with radio, Congress will likely need to step in and make it happen.

  • Ban my ears! (Score:2, Funny)

    by jbrelie ( 322599 )
    I'm sure I've used my ears to illegally listen to copyrighted material at least once. Perhaps they should be seeking to ban ears and suing my parents for.. umm.. "making" them?

  • Whacky (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smclean ( 521851 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:09PM (#10496666) Homepage
    I think the problem the courts will have to face is the fact that not only do companies create P2P software, individual developers create P2P software for free. They do not profit on it. This makes the *AA's case significantly shakier, because they can't prattle on about how the 'business model' attempts to skirt copyright law; there will be no business model. There will be no profit, IE no sinister motive.

    Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?

    I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.

    The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.

  • Legitimate applications for peer-to-peer networks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anachattak ( 650234 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:14PM (#10496704)
    I've actually been working on a project to make a legitimate use of peer-to-peer technology on behalf of aspiring artists. It's an idea still in development, but I've put together a website for the effort (called Distributed Development) at http://www.distributed-development.com [distribute...opment.com]. I just "launched" it last week and am looking for aspiring artists across the country and around the globe to collaborate on projects and make reputations for themselves. It uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute bandwidth costs among the user network, so large independently developed files can be shared without costing an individual server excessive bandwidth.

    Another application I've seen is an article I received the other day, about the BBC using BitTorrent to distribute programming to viewers (http://www.hyperreal.org/~mpesce/fbm.html [hyperreal.org]).

  • Declare Microsoft Illgal ! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:18PM (#10496740)
    No I'm not trolling. It is the Microsoft software that has allowed me to:

    Store
    Retrieve
    Burn to CD
    and Listen to MP3 files. As well as:
    Execute all the P2P programs available
    which are likely Written using MS development tools.

    There are probably people out there that have only bought computers with MS software on them for the sole purpose of connecting to the Internet to download free music.

    None of this would be possible without Microsoft's enabling software. After all, I locate and download my illegal P2P software using Microsoft Internet Explorer, and run it all under Microsoft Windows.

    My first point is that these attacks against P2P software companies seem exceptionally selective. If this was a true attack against the enablers of this technology, then Microsoft is the biggest infringer. And they get a complete pass on this.

    On the more serious note my second point is, there are certainly a lot of other people who want to determine what you are allowed to write and run on your own d@mn PC (or Mac).

    All this violates my overall sense of fairness and individual rights!

  • We've got some time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maximino ( 767005 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @03:19PM (#10496741)
    But we really need to use it wisely. I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to take this particular case this term; the reasoning of the 9th Circuit is solid, and it's certainly in-line with what the SC itself has found copyright law to allow.

    But this is no time to become complacent. Congress has the power to write/rewrite the copyright laws at its discretion, and the Supreme Court has largely decided that it can't (or won't) interfere with that power. Expect the fight to shift to the legislative arena, with all the lobbying ability at the **AA's disposal. The INDUCE act and PIRATE act are just the harbingers of what they might try.

    The lesson is that we've got to take P2P mainstream! It's got to be built into important applications that are used on a daily basis, so that lobbyists line up on the other side when the fight comes. It's good that it's already being used to distribute Linux distros, but we need enough uses that it is no longer possible to talk about banning it. There's probably only about a 2-year window before the legislation starts coming, so people who are software developers need to get cracking.

  • confounded technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @04:24PM (#10497231) Homepage Journal
    Hear Hear! And furthermore, sir, I have GRAVE ISSUES with this so called "postal service," with which, I have it on good authority, nefarious tune-peddlers are exchanging many the Victrola phono-graph via some sort of criminal hotbed called eBay without returning a whit of recompense to the artists in question!

  • Law is not C++ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hacksoncode ( 239847 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @04:51PM (#10497527)
    As much as all us geeks here on /. would like it (not), the law is not something that is or should be executed with computer precision.

    The courts (and juries) are perfectly capable of distinguishing between WWW/FTP/Windows/VCRs and Kazaa, in spite of the fact that they serve logically equivilent purposes.

    The difference is intent, and the difference is how the software is used, both as perceived by a reasonable person.

    The web isn't, by and large, almost entirely composed of attempts to infringe copyrights. Neither is Windows, nor is FTP.

    90% of existing P2P is. And I bet you'd have a really hard time convincing a jury that it wasn't designed with that in mind (first of all, all of Slashdot would be subpoena'd as evidence to the contrary).

    And, frankly, neither were VCRs. The vastly overwhelming usage of VCRs was and is not to infringe copyright, but to make (at least reasonably) fair use of copyrighted materials. You really don't see (and never have seen) people using VCRs to make 1000s of copies of the 6 O'Clock News and give it to 1000s of people they don't know.

    Don't get complacent.

    • Re:Law is not C++ (Score:3, Informative)

      by elegie ( 681405 )

      With P2P services, those who produce the software are not able to effectively control the content upon the services. The original Napster service was in a position to exert control because all communications relied on its central location. A P2P service could have a license agreement prohibiting illegal uses, but there would be no way for the makers of the software to enforce that agreement except by tracking down individual users. Should they be required to do that? The P2P manufacturer could add copy prot

  • How will I buy CD's without P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:17PM (#10499319) Homepage Journal

    Between work and the rest of my life, I spend a lot of time not browsing in record stores. That's right - I don't have the time to go to the store and sit in a listening room for hours on end...

    Even though I spend hours at work listening to music, it's all on CD - I don't want to risk getting sued by the RIAA. And I'm getting pretty tired of my collection - but I'm not going to risk getting fired and (possibly) sued because I wanted to listen to something different...

    Now granted, if I had P2P, I could scope out new bands, and order the CD through Amazon during my lunch hour. But I don't have P2P. And I haven't bought a CD in about 12 to 18 months.

    I wonder when the RIAA is going to wake up and figure out that P2P is the most effective way to market music to time-starved professionals. We have the money for CD's, but lead hectic lives; time spent in a record store is time that could have been spent coding. We can't stand the stuff on the pop-40 stations, but we are willing to buy good music - if only we could find it...

    And the interesting part is that I'm spending much more on books than on CD's these days - I can read before I buy without being thought a criminal.

  • Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MacWiz ( 665750 ) <gzieman54NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:13PM (#10500434) Journal
    How will the Supreme Court rule?

    Hmmm.... let's see. The RIAA's case goes basically like this: "Those thieving pirates are stealing our stuff." This is the same offensive legal tactic that was used to stop piano rolls, player pianos, radio, tape recorders, cassettes and VCRs, just to name the most obvious "pirate" technologies that threatened to destroy the entire entertainment industry.

    They've never won before with that argument. But hey, maybe the Supremes will do acid the week that the RIAA case comes up and forget every prior decision handed down over the last 100 years in cases involving technology and copyright.

Slashdot Top Deals

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Close