Record Industry Loses Bid To Shutdown Grokster

[kAb]

CHA-CHING!

now the riaa is gonna cry for an appeal. boo-fucking-hoo.

lol this is fuckin hilarious :

in case no1 knows

[Schmiggy_JK23]

this is great.

will also set precendence for any ruling in the kazaa/sharman networks ruling.

[Switeck]

Originally posted by kAb@26 April 2003 - 19:01
lol this is fuckin hilarious  :

That picture is in fact not very accurate for Kazaa, Gnutella v0.6, or Shareaza -- ALL use a split-level scheme with average users at the bottom (nodes/leaves) and 'network connectivity servers' (supernodes/ultrapeers/hubs) at the top. The node/leaves send their request to the supernodes/ultrapeers/hubs. It is the supernodes/ultrapeers/hubs that query across the network, the nodes/leaves only get the results.

[Ad]

SUCKO

That is good news!!!

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Dogbert@26 April 2003 - 02:56
Horray! Finally a JUDGE with lots of insight and real BALLS!

I can't echo this enough! At last...

[OlderThanDirt]

Clocker wrote: "Celebrate while possible...there WILL be an appeal."

This is a face-saving effort only. The judge was quite cagey in using, as part of his argument, the Supreme Court case of Sony V. Columbia -- equating FastTrack to VCRs and photocopiers, all of which have substantial non-infringing uses. This was something used as an argument during the Napster trials. Unfortunately, Napster made the mistake of limiting file-searches to MP3s only whereas FastTrack searches are not limited by file-type. Businessmen use FastTrack to provide spreadsheets, database files, and PowerPoint presentation files to colleagues and clients. Families use FastTrack to send photo albums to multiple family members all over the globe. I've even heard that some Real Estate entities are considering the use of FastTrack to provide a "permanent" home for their multiple-listing files ... so agents all over the country can quickly access them. In short, as the Supreme Court said, "...substantial non-infringing uses."

Bottom line ... let them appeal. But as they do this, ask yourself, "How many times has the Supreme Court reversed itself?"

This doesn't necessarily mean that FastTrack "users" are out of the woods. The R.I.A.A. is already making headway on two lawsuits against Verizon asking for user info (name/address/etc.) -- one user being a suspected illegal downloader, another being a suspected illegal uploader. In short, while FastTrack creators have probably covered their own hind-ends, they've not covered the hind-ends of people who USE their software. Undoubtedly, the R.I.A.A. (and M.P.A.A.) will want to "make examples" of some users in hopes of scaring off others. Unfortunately, the problem there is that these legal actions cost a lot of money and only nab one user at a time out of millions. The question now is ... how long would they be willing to spend that kind of money to make one-at-a-time examples ... or rather, how long can they AFFORD to spend that kind of money to make one-at-a-time examples?

The ultimate outcome? My guess is that the R.I.A.A./M.P.A.A. will take the judge's advice (which was part of his ruling) ... that this issue will not be solved in the courts ... that they should direct their efforts to the legislative arena. And, I suspect the recording and movie industries will realize that their only way to fight file-sharing is by "making" or "re-writing" law to their liking. So, everyone should keep their eyes peeled for legislation sponsored by these industries.

[OlderThanDirt]

For anyone interested, this is an article I'm currently marketing -- written immediately after the Grokster/Streamcast decision came down:

A Willing Recruit in the MP3 Jihad
© 2003 by (OlderThanDirt)

"YESSS!!!!!" I shouted. And, I imagine my shout was being echoed by millions of others who'd read the news. In a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge, Stephen Wilson, two file-sharing firms (Grokster, Ltd. & StreamCast Networks, Inc.) were absolved of any liability for contributory copyright infringement. It was the most stunning defeat for the R.I.A.A. (Recording Industry Association of America) ever on U.S. soil. The R.I.A.A. was left seething over the decision, certain it would send the wrong message to those who would pirate copyrighted music recordings. And I might have been seething right along with them if it hadn't been for a series of events that made me a willing recruit in the MP3 jihad.

Fifty-three year-old men like me love music just as much as anyone else. But, I was robbed of much of it. In 2000, my garage was home to over 1,000 unplayable LP and 45-rpm phonograph records. I kept them only for the aesthetic and nostalgic value of their album covers. The records themselves were either warped or had mold/mildew leeched into the grooves, courtesy of improper (non-air-conditioned) storage by the Navy while I was in the Vietnam theater, circa 1970s. However, I had some fair disposable income in 2000 and decided to reclaim my musical past. It was easier said than done.

Some 60s-era music was unobtainable. And, some of the music I found was either re-mastered or re-recorded. These versions bore no resemblance to the original sound that made the songs popular in the first place. After grumbling about this dilemma one too many times, my teenage son finally barked, "Geez, Dad, why don't you just try Napster?"

"What's Napster?" I replied.

He explained it was a file-sharing program allowing several users to connect to a network. Once connected, they could search for MP3 music files on each other's computers ... downloading shared music from users while they uploaded shared music from others. I gave it a test drive and ... WOW!

My son and I headed for the garage. One by one, we went through the albums/45s and made a list of the music I wanted to reclaim. In a six-month stint of alphabetical searches on Napster for the obscure music of my generation, I reclaimed literally everything I was searching for. It was during this time, however, that I became aware of negative vibes associated with what I was doing ... that some people considered me a pirate.

I dismissed this notion of piracy. There were two important differences between me and other Napster users. First, I disabled sharing (no one could upload MP3s from my computer). Secondly, the MP3 music I was downloading was music I was legally entitled to have under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1982 -- music I already owned. For every Roy Orbison song I downloaded, a record store had already taken my money, a recording studio had already taken their cut, and Roy himself had already pocketed his royalty. One of his songs I owned (and downloaded) was, "Pretty Woman." That's when the electronic police finally caught me.

BANNED! That's the word I saw on my Napster screen about a week after I'd downloaded the song. There was also a link provided for an explanation. A complaint against me had come from Barbara Orbison, et al (the estate of Roy Orbison) to the effect I’d violated the estate’s copyright. I was hopping mad. Since I'd disabled sharing, no other user had access to songs on my computer ... songs they might not have been legally entitled to. And, neither Napster nor the Orbison estate checked first to see if I owned the music ... to ask if I was merely exercising my legal rights under A.H.R.A. They just banned me outright. I'd not be able to use Napster anymore unless I went through a complicated procedure of response in protest. Uh-huh. I began to hoist the Jolly Roger -- but only halfway up the flagpole.

I wanted to punch my fist through the monitor screen. I'd done nothing wrong. "I'll be damned if I'm going to allow them to force me into a position of being guilty until proven innocent!" I yelled to myself. So, I headed for the search engines. Within an hour, I'd found a website (several, actually) with explicit instructions on how to modify my Windows registry file to lift the ban -- and went right back to doing what I'd done before ... downloading MP3 files of music I already owned while keeping my sharing disabled. Then, I began hearing rumors of something I'd always suspected ... and possible proof that my suspicions were well-founded.

Prior to my Napster experiences, I'd always thought of music pirates as common thieves ... that nothing could possibly justify what they do. And, by pirates, I mean people downloading MP3s of music they don't already own simply to avoid paying for it. Then the F.T.C. (Federal Trade Commission) took the music industry to court for violations of the Lanham Act. The charge? Price-fixing and other unfair trade practices making the cost of music CDs artificially higher than they should be. $400 million (approximate) was the figure the F.T.C. used to quantify this consumer theft. Later, the attorneys general of several states (led by New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer) filed a class-action antitrust suit against the top-5 music-CD cartel. And their estimate of the theft was somewhat higher than the F.T.C. estimate. It was then I began to see so-called "pirates" in a whole new light.

There's law ... and then there's justice. Theft is against the law. However, stealing from a thief who has already stolen from you invokes a certain "poetic justice" that I for one can appreciate. Metaphorically speaking, the music-CD cartel had been flipping an unfriendly hand gesture toward music consumers for years and getting away with it. All the advent of Napster did was give music consumers a tool allowing them to flip the same unfriendly hand gesture back in the cartel's direction. And, music consumers did this in spades. Of course, most people (including me) would say that electronic vigilante justice is inappropriate ... that the criminal justice system is the proper venue to deal with the crimes of the music industry. With such a formidable array of attorneys general coming into this battle, I was hopeful that justice would be served. Alas, I was wrong.

Consider this simile. Let’s say your neighborhood comprised ten homeowners. A burglar breaks into all ten homes and steals a hundred-dollar bill from each homeowner (you included). Then let’s say the burglar gets caught making his escape and finds himself in front of a judge. Restitution would seem simple -- give a hundred-dollar bill back to each homeowner. But, what if the judge rendered this decision instead:

1) Let the thief keep 65% of the money he stole.

2) Let the thief donate 18% of the money he stole "in property" (as valued by the thief but actually worth much less) to community groups.

3) Pay the court the remaining 17% of what he stole in cash ... allowing the government to assess administrative fees and lawyers to assess legal fees against the amount (without having to publish how much those fees really are).

4) Allow the public to apply for a pittance share of whatever cash is left over after the government and lawyers had taken their share.

Wouldn’t you feel ripped off twice ... once by the burglar and once by the criminal justice system?

Had the settlement forced the music-CD cartel to "roll back" prices until at least $400 million was put back into the hands of music consumers, my Jolly Roger flag flying at half-mast would have come down. Instead, the settlement was a slap in the face of every music consumer, including me, and my Jolly Roger went right to the top of the flagpole. The judgment against the cartel totaled only $143,075,000 and was distributed in this manner:

1) 5.5 million CDs, valued at $75,700,000 (retail value, not actual value), would be distributed to public entities and nonprofit organizations in each state to benefit CD consumers and promote music programs.

2) $67,375,000 in cash would be distributed to the settling states.

On the CDs, note that there was no specificity as to "titles." In short, I suspect this will merely allow the CD cartel to clear their warehouse shelves of titles that haven't been selling well (or selling at all), i.e. accordion music recorded 20 years ago, instructional CDs teaching the art of yodeling, etc., etc. But the real burn comes in the cash settlement. First, the consumer settlement has been limited to the ripoffs suffered between 1995-2000. The music industry gets away scot-free of any liability for ripoffs suffered outside that time frame. And, while consumers can file for a share of this cash settlement, they don't get first crack at it. That privilege goes to state governments (administrative costs) and lawyers (legal fees). Those figures, to my knowledge, aren't published anywhere and probably won't be. And, all this settlement business aside, I still have one more problem. I didn't see CD prices come down to their proper levels afterward. Did you?

Napster is dead now. But other file-sharing entities have taken its place ... most notably, the entities using FastTrack software (Grokster, Kazaa, and the spyware-free KazaaLite). More Jolly Rogers are flying now than were ever flown before, even during Napster's heyday. And here I am ... a willing recruit in this MP3 jihad ... a man who refuses to allow the music industry and the criminal justice system to stick a metaphorical "kick me" sign on the back of his pants. I suspect other recruits don't feel much different, either. Can you blame us?

-- 30 --

* Post-Article Addendum *

This is for readers shouting, "Hey, what about the victimized artists?" I don't generally download music I don't own unless I want to "hear before I buy." And, I have a certain amount of sympathy for indy-label artists worried that their work might go uncompensated. But artists signed to the top-5 CD cartel? No sympathy at all. Performers are music consumers just like the rest of us. But, they tend to be more knowledgeable consumers and know "the biz" forwards and backwards. If a performer voluntarily signs away their music rights to the cartel, knowing full-well the cartel will use those rights to fleece the consumer, then the performer is an accomplice to the crime and deserves no sympathy.

[Rat Faced]

OlderThanDirt, welcome to the boards

Nice article...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

very nice article.

Let the RIAA put that in their pipe and smoke it.

[OlderThanDirt]

Thanks Schmiggy_JK23 & Rat Faced. I was surprised no one insulted me yet, hehe. Everything I said in that article was straight from the heart ... including my admission to being the bain of file-sharers everywhere -- namely, a person who downloads but disables sharing. Of course (grin), my status as a leech was during my Napster years. Whether or not I share now is a secret I'll keep for a while (grin).

FWIW, there was another addendum I wanted to add to that article ... but didn't want to make it too wordy. I'm just shy of 53 years old and so this guy might be a bit before-your-time. Victor Borge was a comedian who used music as a vehicle for his crazy sense of humor. Imagine Weird Al Yankovic sitting behind a grand piano and taking liberties with classical music ... that was Victor Borge. I'd never owned any of his records but, when he died, I downloaded a very rare concert performance ... London Paladium, 1975. Technically, that download alone made me a pirate. However, it is also true that this concert hasn't been for sale for over a decade ... except in used LP/CD stores. To mount a successful case of copyright infringement, the prosecution must quantify the loss. Now ... how can Columbia Records quantify the loss of a recording they haven't sold in over a decade?

Under trademark law, a trademark owner must prove (A) use of the trademark, and (B) action to protect the trademark. If they can't, they lose protection. The one case I remember where this provision came into play involved a suit by the CBS Network against someone who was using the trademark name "Amos & Andy" -- the name of a old-time-radio comedy show that hasn't been syndicated in years. CBS could prove neither requirement and forfeited their trademark rights. I wish to God the government would incorporate this into copyright law as well.

Right now, I'm still searching for a few gems from my past ... long unsold in stores. But 20-30 years from now, young people today might be in my shoes ... perhaps looking for Eminem songs long unsold in stores. Copyrights should be a "use it or lose it" proposition, just like trademarks.