Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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

More File Sharing Misadventures in Court 42

Posted by timothy from the inexorable dept.
tusixoh writes "Arguments were presented in federal court on Monday in a lawsuit filed against the file-sharing services Grokster, StreamCast, which distributes the Morpheus peer-to-peer software, and Kazaa by record and movie companies claiming that illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and stifling creativity. CNN has the report."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More File Sharing Misadventures in Court More

More File Sharing Misadventures in Court

Comments Filter:
  • StreamCast [streamcastnetworks.com], which redistributes the Gnucleus [gnucleus.com] peer-to-peer software, with a number of added features [techtarget.com].
  • Actually I believe that bit, I mean

    * The ring
    * 8 Mile
    * Santa Clause 2
    * I Spy
    • The Ring has to be about the worst movie I've seen in a while. One quote convinced me that my $5.50 was better spent:

      "She never sleeps!" (said in a hushed, scared, excited tone)

      Can you get any more cliché?
      • $5.50? you must really be living in the fucking sticks.

        RIAA: stifling creativity? that's our job!

      • can you get any more cliche? yes: "we've got company." that one phrase is the embarrassment of an industry. that phrase brings down by at least one star any movie it appears in. and it's in fucking all of them.

        Considering I've never heard the phrase "she never sleeps" ever, anywhere, at any time, it's a stretch to call it a cliche. perhaps you meant "melodromatic" or "hack", but if you really meant "cliche" (and i don't think you did), you are an idiot.

        disclaimer: i haven't seen the movie yet and i'm still right.

  • You know what, I believe that they're losing money from people "stealing" intellectual "property." But so fucking what? The way I see it, if you try to trample all over my God-given Constitutional rights, you deserve to lose money. At least Adam Smith would have agreed with Marx on this point.
    • Ummm. perhaps you should read the Constitution again. This time read the section BEFORE the amendments and you will find that the framers gave us copyright protection first.
      • Amendments supersede the things that come before them... else we'd still be living under prohibition, besides the Constitution doesn't give copyright protection, just the opportunity for Congress to pass such a law.
        • just the opportunity for Congress to pass such a law
          Specifically Article 1 (legislative branch) Section 8 (scope of power):
          The Congress shall have power ...
          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; ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers[.]
          It just seems that Congress forgot about the parts I put in bold. The Supreme Court hasn't published their decision yet to how the Sonny Bono Act (1) actually promotes progress, and if it (2) is of limited time.

          frob.

  • Songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, responsible for such hits as "Hound Dog" and "Jailhouse Rock," are among the plaintiffs and were in the courtroom Monday. The song writing duo said illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and would ultimately stifle creativity.

    Oh yeah, like anyone'd pay money for these songs otherwise... If anything, these guys are stifling the creativity of brand new artists by locking up the business of music in the name of the labels.
    • of course, you know that the reason they haven't written a hit song in 40 years is that digital piracy has taken away their incentive to make music.

      how odd that the many, many talented musicians i know keep doing what they do regardless of commercial success or lack thereof, and none of them are particularly concerned about piracy. and that the only musician who has ever voiced, face to face, a real complaint about digital piracy also happens to make loads of royalties off the music of a "musician" (or "artist") (who you'd recognize, dead or alive) who doesn't actually write or produce most of the songs he sings. what a conundrum. yeah, it must be that only "creative" musicians care about these issues.

    • At least these guys are upfront about what they're after... CA$H.

      Either Today or the LA's Channel 4 news (can't remember which) did an interview with them. And the guy who wrote songs for the Supremes (as in Diana Ross, not the court:-P) did a bit of his song as follows:

      "Stop in the name of Law, before you break my ... bank!"

  • Limewire? The future? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @10:20PM (#4807084) Homepage
    I think this case may bring to head many issues.

    I assume Limewire is in the same technological grouping as Kazaa etc.? I've been playing with it and am very impressed; it's much easier than Napster and quite capable.

    I'm fascinated by the P2P technology for its possibilities as a distributed sharing technology. I'm curious though, how sharing files out of homes and businesses (I assume all these T3 lines I see don't go to people's houses!) is legally different from putting the same files on commercially hosted filespace? (In case I said that wrong, I mean the server space we rent or get gratis with an ISP account.) I don't think there is a difference, aside from it being harder to get caught.

    The other Q is what % of the current file sharing is legal, and I mean under current standards of fair use for the copyrighted material. This was a factor in the VCR litigation, that the machines have significant legitimate uses outside of pirating movies or TV shows -- your nephew bar mitzvah, weddings, fair use, etc. Is a significant fraction of your sharing legal, or minor violations as where you try-before-you-buy?

    I know many people believe copyright law should change. But whether you do or not, you must see this sharing technology will either cause significant changes or be banned. I don't see a stable path ahead. What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying? For the sake for argument, let's make this person really sympathetic: If he doesn't sell 100 copies of his unbelievably wonderful epic work, he's dead, or his daughter doesn't get dialysis, or whatever is takes. With piracy unchecked, he will sell 10 copies. Without piracy, 1,000. Digital watermarks? Some sort of anti-copying technology? A sudden wave of honesty among potential buyers? Music, video, etc. long has been and always will pilfered, but if P2P increases that significantly it will hurt revenues, even if it doesn't happen to now.

    How about a /. white paper? :)
    • First -- it's not different. you're infringing on copyright. but that's not the p2p app's fault, is it? the app is just a tool.

      your hypothetical about the artist whose daughter's kidneys are failing has a hole, and a very important one. With "piracy", more people will see his work. then word of mouth spreads and people download it from his website for a price, or, more to the point, go buy his cd or book or whatever. i can't even list all of the artists whose cds i've bought b/c i could d/l a taste upon hearing about them.
      • "it's just a tool" -- so's a lockpick; it is subject to misuse, so its sale is regulated; something with no redeeming use may be banned outright.

        There's no hole in the hypothetical -- the artist does not sell CD's -- and I said he will make less money with piracy -- it does happen, and people don't pay for what they can get for free. Artists sue for copyright infringement all the time; they wouldn't have to if people were honest. Anyway, you can't change the facts in the hypothetical!
        • ok, settle down. i was only pointing out that the copyright infringer is the one who's definitely and ultimately liable for breaking the law. regulation of file sharing is another issue, and since you point out that you think it has "no redeeming value" shows that you've closed your mind to this issue.

          you equate being "subject to misuse" with having "no redeeming value." this show that you haven't really thought it out: i can stab you in the eye with a pencil -- should pencils be outlawed? if you think that's too simple: i can wipe the data on your computer using a virus that i distribute over the internet -- should the internet be outlawed?

          you never said what the artist sold in your hypothetical. i wasn't changing any facts, because you didn't lay them out. read your original post. i did.

          i don't know why your original post was phrased as a question -- you seem to have already made up your mind.

          you're not very smart, are you?
          • What I was repeating is pretty much the Betamax test -- the legal v. illegal uses of an item determine its legality. Check EFF.org for info.

            I'm pretty sure of what *I* think, but I'd like to hear what others thing. I'm not necessarily looking to be talked out of anything....

            The hypothetical, perhaps could be worded better, but I said, "What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying?" The key words were "distribute internet only" -- no stores. This might be desirable for an artist who can't attract a label, or doesn't want to put up with their nonsense.
            • The hypothetical, perhaps could be worded better, but I said, "What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying?" The key words were "distribute internet only" -- no stores. This might be desirable for an artist who can't attract a label, or doesn't want to put up with their nonsens

              Get a website, with a Paypal or other online-transaction account, and distribute MP3s of a set qualitiy with a distinct requiremnet that redistribution must include a reference back to the website. Include it in the name and ID3 tags of the MP3. Ask for donations on the website.

              The artist can even go to a local CD-press and get a run of albums to sell from said website.
    • I'm fascinated by the P2P technology for its possibilities as a distributed sharing technology. I'm curious though, how sharing files out of homes and businesses (I assume all these T3 lines I see don't go to people's houses!) is legally different from putting the same files on commercially hosted filespace? (In case I said that wrong, I mean the server space we rent or get gratis with an ISP account.) I don't think there is a difference, aside from it being harder to get caught.

      Well, that depends. Do you just put it in your directory, where no one has access to it? Then it is very different. If you put it in your web directory, and allow everyone access to it, then there really isn't a difference. It's all about who has access to the files. It has been ruled legal for you to make MP3s from cds you own, but it is not legal for you to share those MP3s with the entire world.

      The other Q is what % of the current file sharing is legal, and I mean under current standards of fair use for the copyrighted material. This was a factor in the VCR litigation, that the machines have significant legitimate uses outside of pirating movies or TV shows -- your nephew bar mitzvah, weddings, fair use, etc. Is a significant fraction of your sharing legal, or minor violations as where you try-before-you-buy?

      While I don't have hard numbers, I have yet to see anyone even guess that the percentage of legal use is over 5%. Usually, the percentage is much lower, like under 1% (which is a lot closer to the truth I believe. The fraction of legal file sharing is incredibly small. The main attraction of file sharing (as Napster touted at their beginning) is the ability to get all the new songs by all your favorite artists. Unfortunately, that means the attraction is getting copyrighted material you are not legally allowed to obtain.
      • Yep. I'm not terribly naive about the law or the practice of file sharing, but I'm curious how people perceive what's going on. There's a lot of pious claims that file sharers, though they may be breaking the law, actually benefit the artists, despite the artists thinking Napster and P2P are all dens of thieves. The losses are there, not as much as the recording industry claims (only some of the users of "free music" would buy it if it were unavailable for free), but there for sure.

        Quantifying the proportion of legal sharing will be an important issue. I'm hinting at the "Betamax defense" which failed for Napster. But where is the data?

        For a heavy-gauge discussion from IAAL check the EFF [eff.org] discussion of P2P.

        I fear P2P will be shot down, at least temporarily, perhaps out of the court's misunderstanding. But if it does, we know who's the skunk at the garden party.

  • Zappa saw it coming, but do we? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @10:33PM (#4807167)
    Prelude to Joe's Garage
    ==
    Eventually it was discovered That God
    Did not want us to be All the same

    This was Bad News
    For the Governments of The World
    As it seemed contrary To the doctrine of
    Portion Controlled Servings

    Mankind must be made more uniformly
    If The Future Was going to work

    Various ways were sought To bind us all together
    But, alas Same-ness was unenforceable

    It was about this time That someone
    Came up with the idea of Total Criminalization

    Based on the principle that If we were All crooks
    We could at last be uniform To some degree
    In the eyes of The Law

    Shrewdly our legislators calculated
    That most people were Too lazy to perfom a Real Crime
    So new laws were manufactured
    Making it possible for anyone
    To violate them any time of the day or night,
    And Once we had all broken some kind of law
    We'd all be in the same big happy club
    Right up there with the President,
    The most exalted industrialists,
    And the clerical big shots
    Of all your favorite religions

    Total Criminalization
    Was the greatest idea of its time
    And was vastly popular
    Except with those people
    Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,

    So, of course, they had to be
    Tricked Into It . . .
    Which is one of the reasons why
    Music
    Was eventually made
    Illegal.
    ---
    Miss you FZ.
    • Well ... Zappa, or at least his widow, is hardly indifferent to copyright. I think you may be seriously misinterpreting those lyrics.

      Re the Sonny Bono Act, his widow: [recordinga...lition.com] "I'm all for copyright term extension, to maintain the integrity of the artists' intentions," says Gail Zappa, widow of recording artist/composer Frank Zappa, "even though for most it's an uphill fight to get control." Frank Zappa got ownership of his masters before he died; his widow owns them but has sold the distribution rights to Rykodisc"

      And a recent lawsuit. [rollingstone.com]

      There's a difference between the death of expression and the death of copyright.
      • On the other hand, the newly redesigned zappa.com
        supplies a constant (free) stream of random zappamusic.
        While it's not the entire catalog online for free,
        high fidelity download, it's better than an icepick
        in the forehead.
  • It has become more apparent with each court case that the existing entertainment industry suffers from stifled creativity, since they, with their vast resources, are unable to make such an incredible technology known as decentralized filesharing work to their benefit.
  • What Creativity?

    1) Remakes
    2) Sequels
    3) Taking some Current Pop Culture Icon and making a movie in which they are the star

  • Attention, RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot@stanTWAINgo.org minus author> on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @12:02AM (#4807674) Homepage Journal
    I'll stop 'stealing' your products when:

    A) You lower the price on your products to something sane and reasonable. And let's not bullshit, okay? You've been nailed twice by the FTC for price fixing, and yet somehow I still can't find any CD I want for less than $15 unless I buy it used-- and of course then I'm still a thief in your eyes, just for a different reason.

    B) You don't foist crappy product on your customers. I'm tired of buying CDs on the strength of 1 or 2 good songs that got radio airplay, only to find out that the other 9 or 10 songs on the CD are complete and utter shit.

    C) You allow returns of product for no other reason than customer dissatisfaction. Put the time, money and energy you're wasting on DRM into finding a way to allow this sort of thing that minimizes abuse of the system.

    There you go, Hilary. Pick any two of the above and do them, and I'll happily start buying CDs again. Otherwise, fsck off and die.

    Respectfully,

    ~Philly
    • And why exactly do these reasons entitle you to take something for free? Reason A entitles you to not make a decision not to partake of their music. Just because you don't like the price certainly doesn't entitle you to take it for free. Reason B can be easily remedied by going to any of the places that let you sample music before you buy it. Hell, Amazon has samples of usually half the songs on a CD. Some CD stores allow you to listen to a CD before you buy it. This is no different from any other industry that allows you a limited sample before you buy (say video games and books for example). Reason C has nothing to do with the RIAA at all. The stores you are going to set policy on these things. They have made the decision to not allow returns without a good reason (which is a good policy considering how easy it would be to buy a CD, copy it, and then return it and still have a perfect copy). This once again is no different than many other industries (such as books and video games).

      Your arguements are very valid problems with the industry. But having valid arguements in no way entitles you to do whatever you want and violate their copyright (and steal music, which you admit you are doing by saying you are downloading it in place of buying it).
  • claiming that illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and stifling creativity.

    Well, if they win the problem is they open themselves up to lawsuits from the ARTISTS who could sue thier own record companies using the same argument.
    • The record companies have behaved such that their customers would rather *scoff* the law than pay. I find it hard to believe that millions of people are at wrong by downloading a copyright work. Intellectual property is not an inaleinable right. It's an abridgement of liberty that was made to foster invention when the pace of invention was much slower. Frankly, the current version of copyright law encorages limited innovation and stifles invention completely. Personally, I think IP is on a collision course with a plurality... that wants it's rights back.

      $G
  • How can they 'sue' Kazaa when Kazaa is not based in the United States? What jurisdiction does the US (aside of political) have over other countries? Best as I remember, it's based out of Vanatu..(sp?)
    • How can they 'sue' Kazaa when Kazaa is not based in the United States? What jurisdiction does the US (aside of political) have over other countries? Best as I remember, it's based out of Vanatu..(sp?)

      Very easily. Courts will take any excuse to grant themselves jurisdiction. All they need to show is that in some form Kazaa is doing some sort of business in the US. They'll likely rule that marketing their product to US consumers combined with "harm" to the Record lables located here is sufficient. Injunctive relief would be completely unenforceable, but a monetary award is pretty easy to collect: A bank account in nearly any EU country can be frozen and liquidated with the proper paperwork. Any assets located in the US, Europe, and much of the rest of the world can be siezed.

  • record and movie companies claiming that illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and stifling creativity

    And there was me thinking it was greedy and financially "troubled"* multinational corporations costing artists [NOT manufactured performers, as are the trend nowadays] their well-deserved share of the pie.

    As for stifling creativity, isn't that the music biz being scared to sign up and/or promote anything other than the standard teenie trash we're all sick of, because they can't afford to "risk" any money? I went into HMV the other day, looked at the top 40s, and walked out shaking my head. There's plenty of creativity out there, they're just pissed that they're not making money off of it.

    Ali

    *They are not troubled, they use creative accounting to keep on-paper profits down, so they don't have to pay much/any tax [maybe even GETTING millions back from the .gov!] and can turn to their employees and say "Uhhh.. troubled year, gonna have to make a few redundancies, take away the free coffee machine, and keep your pay shitty."]
  • Fine, Kazaa may get convicted of contributory copyright infringement. And what next? Send out a US army raid to Vanuatu to enforce the verdict?

    Kazaa moved to the island state to circumvent a verdict of the first instance judge of the Netherlands. Unnecessary, since the Dutch court of appeal in Amsterdam said that Kazaa is legal. Too bad, but at least we know Kazaa is legal in the Netherlands.

    In summary, this kind of lawsuits are are useless exercise just as long as there's no global law enforcement system.

    There is a European (civil) law enforcement system and the US (and some Asian countries) would love to join, but AFAIK this is still quite far away.

    And even then, there's still the question whether Vanuatu will join the treaty.

    There's also TRIPS, which requires minimal intellectual property protection in law. But I don't think Vanuatu is a member of that, either.

  • " claiming that illegal copying of music and movies was costing artists millions and stifling creativity" ... No, crappy artists doing illegal drugs causes lack of creativity... so does wierdness, just ask Michael Jackson

  • Go to IUMA.com [iuma.com]. Their name officially is Internet Underground Music Archive, but in keeping in the Recording Industry Association and Motion Picture Association, I'd name them the Internet's Unsigned Musicians Association. They have:

    • Over 40 genres of music
    • Over 42,000 bands registered.
    • Top 40 list in each genre
    • Streamed MP3 or RealAudio, all the time.

    Many of the bands are quite good. Click on their 'Radio IUMA' link (it's a popup window, but not very annoying), choose your genre (or all) and listen to streamed audio all the time.

    [rant mode=on]

    The (flawed) logic that so many people seem to use on music is:

    1. RIAA puts out music.
    2. I like some of their music but not all.
    3. I am dislike some of their prices and policies ($15 / DRM)
    4. I only listen to 2/10 of each of their CD's
    5. THEREFORE, I can buy 2 RIAA CD's and steal 8 (10? 15? more?) RIAA CD's, since that's all I'll use.

    The (correct) logic to use is this:

    1. RIAA distributes about 95% of all music in the USA
    2. RIAA represents about 0.0001% of all good musicians in the USA
    3. I only like 2/10 of RIAA's music
    4. RIAA has excessive prices and unreasonable policies ($15 / DRM)
    5. I only listen to 2/10 of their CD's
    6. THEREFORE, I should buy or obtain music from any of the 99.9999% of the musicians in the USA and around the world. Most will give me their music freely.

    [rant mode = off]

    Yes, there are a lot of not-so-good garage bands, but there are LOTS of good, independant bands on sites like IUMA. Many bands are professional groups with several CDs. Many groups will sell you their CD's (some post all their songs, some post only a few from each CD). All the groups would be happy if you sent them a check for $2 saying "I love your music on IUMA, send me more!"

    With the number of articles being posted about the problems with RIAA, its sad that only a few of them reference free music sources like IUMA. The /. crowd who generally understands that "free software != bad software" should feel the same way about music, "free != bad". There may be lots of free stuff that isn't great, but much of it appeals to somone, or served some purpose for someone. Unlike sourceforge, most musicians don't put up songs of the form "I have a great idea for a song, its like J-Lo with an electronica beat. Pl34se help me write it."

    frob.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close