RIAA, MPAA Lose Suit Against Streamcast and Grokster 628
ha-reed writes "News.com is reporting that a federal court judge in Los Angeles has handed down a ruling that Streamcast Networks (the company that makes Morpheus) and Grokster are not liable for copyright infringements due to files that are traded with their software. The judge made the comparison between file sharing software and VCR's that many supporters of file sharing often use." EFF has the decision (1.4Mb PDF) online (and a .torrent is
here
in case eff.org melts, which it won't). See our most recent story about the lawsuit.
FF (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, my verbal reply would be. "Duh, its about time." But hey, this is good.
I hope the judge gets some nookie for this one.
Re:FF (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FF (Score:5, Funny)
My guess is that he has a whole hard drive of pr0n at home. Wonder where that came from...
Re:FF (Score:5, Funny)
Whoa.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whoa.... (Score:5, Funny)
hurray... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hurray... (Score:5, Funny)
The camera pans across a room, boxes, packing materials, and possesions scattered about in no particular order...
...and here we have Aunt Alice packing up Mom's favorite lamp. "hey Alice, how's the move treating you?', echoes the voice behind the camera...
"well, I know this is a gift from your Dad to Mom, and I know she'd just die! if the movers broke it"
***
Sounds rather like a rather boring way to celebrate to me... =)
Maybe not, brother (Score:3, Informative)
We may still see some college kids get thrown in jail.
w00t! (Score:4, Insightful)
Score: Common Sense 1, RIAA/MPAA 50
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that people are finally admitting that car manufacturers aren't liable for every drunk driver, we should see a lot more wins against the RIAA member companies. Or, at least, we should see the RIAA start to go after the real 'pirates' instead of companies that write legitimately useful software.
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Funny)
Belay that w00t, at least for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Belay that w00t, at least for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Belay that w00t, at least for now (Score:5, Insightful)
The students were doing 2 things, in general. They'd written and were hosting a site which indexed all available files on the campus network, and they'd put files in publicly available directories on their servers.
The decision here reflects on the first, but not the second, count. The first count is merely an indexing service which would stand somewhere between this decision and napster. That is to say, they control the site and traffic but they have no safeguards for restricting usage.
They're still screwed on the second count, though. They were sharing files they did not have the copyright on, and thus were commiting copyright infringement.
Re:w00t! (Score:5, Informative)
Read the decision -- I know it's a bit long, but it's very easy reading for a court order. The order specifically says that there is copyright infringement going on. The only thing this does is absolve Grokster and Streamcast of responsibility for it because they're not "substantially contributing" to the infringement. One of the key points in their defense was the fact that they could all close their doors tomorrow and there would be no change in what was being traded on the networks. The other key point they made was that there was a substantial non-infringing use for the technology. There's a huge difference between their position and the college students who were working hard to ensure people could trade music and movies -- they can't claim ignorance, and they likely won't be able to claim non-infringing use of their networks either.
Also, as soon as they (the college students) shut their networks down the file-trading stopped (over their networks at least) -- this case is mostly about gnutella and whether or not Grokster and Streamcast control gnutella and kazaa.... Neither of them do(they control some software used to access the networks, but there is no control over the networks -- that was a key point in their defense), and as a result they walk -- your college students won't likely be so lucky, although I think the lawsuit is ridiculous.
Re:w00t! (Score:4, Interesting)
This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually there is ONLY ONE (Score:3, Insightful)
They did it 20 years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the AK-47. Name a particularly good reason why you need a fully automatic (automagic) weapon. Having a firearm is enough, no?
THe problem is, everyone, everwhere see's computers and various technologies as AK-47's. No depth perception.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
It's gotten so bad the children are afraid to go to school.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I want to. Now, name a particularly good reason why I shouldn't. I'm trained in handling, marksmanship, and am not a felon.
THe problem is, everyone, everwhere see's computers and various technologies as AK-47's. No depth perception.
Uh, aside from having an extra comma, this doesn't make sense. Likening a computer to an AK-47 is like.. wait.. it's likening a computer to an AK-47. One is a piece of silicon that does logical analysis and the other is a fucking gun.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ack! Since one person was a criminal, everybody who has a Bushmaster hunting rifle.
I am not advocating the criminalization of a tool, I'm just pointing out that your criteria above for "what should justify my ability to have a firearm just because I want to" is wrong.
No, it isn't wrong. I have every right to have a gun, just because I want to. My possession of a
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Arguments of this sort tend to get ridiculous as either side gives more extreme examples. The fact, however, is that you have to draw the line somewhere. For example,
I have every right to have a gun, just because I want to.
would obviously not apply if we're talking about a nuclear weapon. In fact, you can't buy tanks, missiles, or attack helicopters.
Point is, argue why you should be allowed to own a gun, or argue why not, but don't discuss banning knives or fists because the same argument can be taken to an opposite yet equally ridiculous extreme, to no real purpose.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you do have to argue. What you are arguing (quoted below) is that the gun is like a computer or a car, which you can own. Since they are not identical objects, you in fact have to argue that they are the same for our purposes.
I do no harm to innocents by owning a gun. My neighbors are not influenced by me owning a gun. I can protect my family better. I can protect myself better.
These are all common points, so let me offer a few points (not arguments) for consideration.
Sometimes society has to make blanket bans because it can't distinguish good people from bad people. For example, airports are full of restricted areas, although 99% of the people would not endanger an airplane. You probably won't argue for an absolute right to bring your gun everywhere (meeting the President, getting on a plane, etc) either. I imagine you accept the premise that your good intentions may not be reelvant in some cases determined by society.
Like I mentioned, society draws a line somewhere. Because it's a line somewhere in a continuum, it is necessarily arguable. That is, if we allow semi-automatic rifles, why not automatic rifles? Why not grenade launchers? (Conversely, if we ban guns, why not knives?) That line reflects majority thinking, may not always be sane, but is just as valid as any individual viewpoint. It's where society finds balance between collective comfort (if only psychological) and individual wants.
Point is, none of your reasons apply only to (say) an automatic rifle, but not to the next more powerful weapon. The better question is where you think the line should be, and why there and not anywhere else? If you can't find a more compelling argument for any other point in the continuum of weapons, then you need to accept that in some societies you can't have some kinds of weapons.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
To defend myself from the government that attempts to confiscate my AK-47, 'nuff said.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
firearms (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't even buy a semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) version of it, nor of the AR-15, nor the MP5. Worse yet is that the law regarding what is and is not allowed is so vague as to let law enforcement, not the legislature decide on a whim what i can buy. Utter crap.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Plaintiffs appear reluctant to acknowledge a seminal distinction between Grokster/StreamCast and Napster: neither Grokster nor StreamCast provides the "site and facilities" for direct infringement. Napster,
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what amazes me is that a law enforcement official recognized the utter pointlessness and futility of enforcing the letter of the law. Usually they'll just forge on ahead and make idiots of themselves (cough*War on Drugs*cough).
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is not what happened. The judge recognized the utter pointlessness and futility of claiming that the letter of the law does ban what these P2P software distributors do. In fact, the judge all but invited the legislature to create laws to limit the ability of such networks to profit from providing software with a "draw" from widespread infringement.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
"To justify a judicial remedy, however, Plaintiffs invite this Court to expand existing copyright law beyond its well-drawn boundaries. As the Supreme Court has observed, court must tread lightly in circumstances such as these."
Napster really was complicit...Kazaa isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is a case where he reconciles this decision with the Napster one, and he does a very good job making a compelling argument why this and Napster are very much different. So I don't know that it's a matter of finally getting a good judge...it may be more a matter of the community picking the correct battle.
I know it's long read, but check out the decision. The best bits are:
pg 11, lines 1-3
pg 24, 4-7
pg 26, 8-15
pg 31, line 22 - pg 32, line 26
pg 32, line 25 - pg 33 line 2
He makes a very clear argument that the centralized server is critical to the argument, and that under copyright law, one is liable for "vicarious" infringement if one has the right and ability to police the activity AND if one profits from it. As Napster did all 3, they ate it on this count. Kazaa doesn't.
Also, Napster was guilty of contributing to copyright infringement as the crime could not have been committed without Napster's assistance, and as there were specific times where the RIAA notified them of specific crimes (ie, specific files) and Napster did nothing. The law is very clear on that point - if you could have stopped it given current means and don't, you are guilty.
I made that whole "it's not the tool" argument for Napster many times, but having read the actual copyright law involved now, I can see how Napster went down. They needed a better legal team from the outset, because what they did was flat against the law.
Re:Napster really was complicit...Kazaa isn't (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge Wilson (Score:5, Informative)
Now that we finally got some results on the merits, we can see that we may actually be in good hands here.
i wouldn't give a poo about this (Score:5, Insightful)
until i see a supreme court judgement, i'm not going to bother to celebrate.
Re:i wouldn't give a poo about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i wouldn't give a poo about this (Score:5, Funny)
Re:i wouldn't give a poo about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Jason
I would hardly celebrate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would hardly celebrate... (Score:3, Informative)
Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a shocker (Score:3, Informative)
Careful. A judge can strike down a law as being unconstitutional. Laws have been challenged directly in case law. (Roe vs. Wade anyone?) The only time they can't declare a law unconstitutional is if it's an amendment.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
shortly, as a judge has shown cluefulness in regards
to technology.
Oblig. Simpsons Ref (Score:5, Funny)
It was an LA judge's decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, the immediate upshot is that -- miracle of miracles -- Stephen Wilson won't ever see another case brought by either cartel.
However, this is a good precedent. Even judges in the belly of the beast realize just how far the media giants have overextended themselves. My only disappointment is that this has no direct bearing on the "industry vs. Napster VCs" case that was recently brought.
What else has he decided before? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What else has he decided before? (Score:5, Informative)
Other cases [securepoll.com] that were handled by Judge Willson hint to the fact that he is one of the few liberal and pro-Internet (as in "in favor of freedom of individual Internet users") in the country.
Their Thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
How's goes the battle to weaken privacy laws via DMC? [slashdot.org]"
Deniability? (Score:5, Interesting)
i.e. the plaintiffs could NOT prove contributory infringment, unlike in the Napster case.
All in all, a very interesting precedent is set, especially in light of Freenet.
Re:Deniability? (Score:5, Informative)
This makes user anonymity more important (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, if the defendants can't stop it - then they can't be blamed for it. If this holds true for Fasttrack and Gnutella, then it definitely holds true for Freenet.
If this decision is not overturned, then it will create even greater incentive for the RIAA to go after in
Well done that man (Score:4, Funny)
Individuals be prepared (Score:4, Interesting)
This doesn't necessarily bode well for KaZaA (Score:5, Insightful)
Discuss? [64.36.16.250]
Re:This doesn't necessarily bode well for KaZaA (Score:3, Interesting)
Only by changing the protocol stack. They were able to make a client they did not write, not work with theirs. They cannot selectively turn off individual users. They basically rewrote KaZaa, and made everyone upgrade. That's Hardly "controlling that network" The original Morpheus clients could still talk to each other, but not supernodes, so that really didn't help them much.
RIAA vs. The Internet (Score:5, Funny)
Reading the PDF of the ruling now… (Score:4, Informative)
I'd liken this to the.... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a developer of open-source Gnutella software, I know we have a long ways to go to make p2p as ubiquitous and revolutionary as it can be, but not having legal concerns is a huge relief. I think this ruling will convince the RIAA to offer competing services instead of trying to maintain their unjust monopoly on music distribution. It will also make them go after individual users, which isn't good in general but a better strategy than attacking technology.
This ruling is very similar to Linus' recent views on DRM - don't build policy into technology, because you might disable good uses as well as the bad.
VCR Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
While I don't want to get into a debate about the ethics of file sharing (I use it on occasion), this seems like poor analogy for two reasons.
First, both tools can be used in the same way, but file sharing apps provide for widespread distribution of content. Generally speaking, VCRs don't have such a far reaching capability.
Second, there are certainly valid uses for file sharing apps, it is difficult to argue that they aren't mainly used for copyrighted material that you have not paid for. VCRs on the other hand, often used for simply watching something at a different time (you are out when a particular program is being aired), or you are taping something you have a right to view (you pay for cable, and are taping a program or movie that you have paid for access to).
Again, I don't want to start another huge debate, but it seems to be an ill fitting analogy given the circumstances.
Re:VCR Analogy (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the point had to do with distribution, it had to do with the legality of using a VCR. There's plenty of legal things you can do with a VCR even though it can be used to violate copyrights.
As for the VCR being a tool for distribution, it kind of matters how you look at it. Somebody could tape Star Wars off the TV and resell that movie to make money. They'd be encouraged to do so as long as they're making money. With the internet and P2P, there's no real satisfaction towards sharing because you get no money out of it. It's just part of the network. It kinda balances out when you think of it that way. The distribution of it's not as bad as the making money from it. Then there's the whole matter of whether or not the other side is downloading it legally or not. (I.e. what if I'm downloading an Mp3 from a CD I have?)
" VCRs on the other hand, often used for simply watching something at a different time..."
That's part of it, but there's also the archival part of it. That's what got Jack Valenti all upset. He was worried about people making libraries of tapes and then selling them to each other. Time shifting is no longer time shifting when you mean for the tape to permenantly store that content. Then you really have made a copy, and since you didn't pay for it you're in trouble.
Stupid, iddnt it? Good thing the courts ruled in consumer's favor over it.
Share some public domain stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Common sense from California? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course the costly litigation will continue and there will be chances of many overturns..
But its a good start..
It probably helped... (Score:3, Interesting)
No idea if those details made it into the courtroom or not, but it's really not such a hard sell when you use Morpheus to find stuff.
Re:It probably helped... (Score:3, Informative)
Rest assured, they did. I've read the amicus briefs on this case, and the many declarations. As they're public documents, I can make them available if anyone's interested [64.36.16.250].
Expect to see more lawsuits against file traders (Score:5, Insightful)
The Case -Wasn't- Dismissed (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonetheless, it is a good ruling and shows some of the C.D. Cal judges like Judge Wilson, much like Judge Patel in N.D. Cal, really "get it."
Man, another filesharing story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my take on it:
With things like knives, crowbars, and other items that may be used to commit crimes, it's fairly obvious even to the common man that an overwhelming majority of people use these items in legal ways rather than illegal ways. After all, we all pretty much use knives every day (to eat with, cut various items, etc.), and there are only so many knife-related murders in a year. By simple logic we can be sure that knives are being used by the majority of people in ways that DON'T relate to hurting or killing other people, since there would be an astronomical number of knife crimes if that were the case.
Now as far as filesharing clients are concerned, it's pretty obvious to even the most technologically dense person that these programs are primarily used to illegally share materials. For one thing, if what you're sharing is legal, there's always some place you can host it: music can be freely hosted on MP3.com, text files/information on your free Geocities webpage, everything else on those Internet hard drive sites, and so on.
Yeah I know, there's going to be 100 replies to me saying "that's not true! I share Linux ISOs!" (as if you can't just download them from a host of mirror sites). Whatever. Collectively, it's pretty damn obvious that filesharing programs are being used to share things you can't share legally. They're just like head shops. Oh yeah, they sell "water pipes" for "smoking tobacco". Right. Cover your ass, I guess.
Either way, don't be surprised that the RIAA has gone after filesharing programs. Don't kid yourself. They're being used to trade copyrighted material. You know it. They know it. They don't like it, and honestly I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of what basically is a black market where their goods are exchanged freely and to millions of people.
You guys blew it. I remember years ago, before MP3s were ever popular. The RIAA probably knew about them, but didn't care. It was kept under control. Then Napster came along, and everyone and their brother was grabbing thousands of songs as fast as they could. I mean damn, it's gotten to the point where dumb fratboys who don't know squat about computers are able to get warez and MP3s easily, where it once took patience, IRC know-how, and knowing the right people. It's gone too far, and now the RIAA is getting pissed. You guys blew it, don't be surprised about what's happening.
Re:Man, another filesharing story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, in my opinion the RIAA blew it. I remember the hay-day of Napster, and I was an avid user of it; or rather my computer was an avid user of it. Around 1998 or so, when i'd leach MP3's from FTP sites I -dreamt- of a service that would let me download one for 75 cents a copy. That would have been great -- if I got 2MB out of a 4MB song I was pissed when it went down becuase I'm on dialup. It was horrid trying to get stuff. Strangely enough it was still less hassle because I was located 30 mins. away from the nearest CD store.
Back to my avid use of Napster -- it was primarily for parties. I had a good DSL connection in my apartment and my roomate was another techie who got a kick out of making things easy to use. I made them work, he made them easy. We rigged up a network in the apartment with a decent fileserver and kept all of our media files on there. Many of which we legally owned mind you. We'd get 10-15 people in our apartment though hanging out and partying some weekends and they'd kick up Napster to find a song they wanted to play and download it. It was faster than them getting the CD from their car and having it ripped too. Doing that would have interrupted the playback of whatever else was going on. My roomate rigged up some IR software and stuff that I made work with the XMMS+Linux playback machine and it was like the ultimate whatever-you-want jukebox. Pretty slick.
Yeah, it was illegal -- sort of. I'd imagine if the RIAA busted in somebody in the room probably owned the CD to whatever we were playing. Songs were kept on disk, usually only played back when the same group of people came around. I don't like being illegal, so I would have GLADLY paid a fee to download popular tracks. I still would. There's a slew of singles I'd like to get right now that I have in my head but I'm sure as hell not going to pay $12 bucks a piece for their CDs and drive out to get them and rip them myself.
Since Napster? Well, somebody goes out to their car and gets the CD and we rip a few tracks and toss it into the playlist. No increased revenue for the RIAA and more pain in the ass for me. They're losing business. It's been said before, but the RIAA doesn't need to squash MP3's, they need to embrace them, and offer them at a price. I'm all for it.
For those who won't RTFA... (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, the momentary potential for liability existed when the software was transferred from the Company to the User, and then if the Company should have reason to believe that the user will use it for infringing uses. As this information is not available to the Company at the time of software transfer to the User, they were not liable.
Furthurmore, liability does not exist because "those comanies could shut their doors and turn off their computers, and the respective etworks would still work fine."
Quoting from the judgement
"Napster possessed the ability to monitor and control its network, and routinely exercised its ability to exclude particular users from it. id. In a virtual sense, the "premises" of the infringement were the Napster network i teelf and Napster had a duty to exercise its reserved right and ability to police those premises to the fullest extent possible- The client software was an essential component of the integrated Napster system, and Napster s obligation to police necessarily extended to the client software itself. Such is not the case here- Defendants provide software that communicates across networks that are entirely outside Defendants control.
Another *very important* point:
Although it may be possible that a new version of morpheus could have been written (by streamcast) that excluded the ability to locate files with a given fingerprint (a given SHA1, for instance), they would not be required to do so as the content was not being indexed or hosted via that Company's systems.
To quote again:
"However, whether these safeguards are practicable is immaterial to this analysis, as the obligation to \\police" arises only where a defendant has the "right and abilityfl to supervise the infrinqing conduc t . See NaDster , 239 F. 3d at 1023; Fonovisa , 76 F. 3d at 262. Plaintiffs' argument - that Defendants could do more to limit the functionali ty of their software with respect to copyrighted works forgets the critical distinction, broached above, between the Napster systemH and the software distributed by Defendants."
In the case of Grokster , the network is the propriety FastTrack network, which is clearly not controlled by Defendant Grokster. In the case of StreamCast, the network is Gnutella , the open- source nature of which apparently places it outside the control of any single entity."
This is an important decision, which could affect the path of p2p development, and my personal livelihood.
Once again, a very satisfied and relieved
-dave-
Get yourself a legitimate high-preformance Gnutella client here!! [bearshare.com]
Even so, Artist take matters into thier own hands (Score:3, Interesting)
"On what appears to be the eve of her scoring an 11th number one hit in UK, Madonna has a simple question for those more interested in trading her song, 'American Life', online, rather than sending it to the top of the retail charts: 'What the f--- do you think you're doing?'"
Get Sony for contributory infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get Sony for contributory infringement (Score:4, Funny)
Beacuse of me my grocery store now has this sign
I love this quote: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we lived by these laws all the time, then producers of guns, cars, knives, computers, software, etc.. etc.. etc.. should be liable.
Picture this:
Hypothetically speaking of course.. Let's say I purchase a gun and a knife with the intent to rob a bank. I purchase a car because at some point I need to get away from the scene. I purchase a computer and W1nd0ze because I need to download information about the area and how to plan my best escape route. Clearly then, the bank that I rob should sue all the producers of these goods because they are obviously encouraging, facilitating, and profiting from this piracy (robbing a bank is closer to the true meaning of the word), and they should be held accountable.
Isn't this as ridiculous as fat people suing McD's because they just can't seem to stop eating?
But in reality I purchased that gun to protect my family. The knife is to cut tomato's since I'm a chef, and the car takes me back and forth to work. The computer allows me to update my on-line cookbook and W1nd0ze just makes it so fun and friendly!
I'm not an original pioneer, but I have to say it over since people like Marta Grutka can't make the connection.... All tools can be used for illegal purposes. Does that fact make it necessary to ban or allow suits of the makers of tools? Hell no!
Down with RIAA and the MPAA!
You people are completely missing the point here (Score:5, Insightful)
And taken with the Verizon ruling (and you KNOW the RIAA will cite it) all this means is that the only people they can go after are you, the USERS.
Shhhhhhhh!...Listen!.... (Score:4, Funny)
Analysis of potential RIAA Response (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Pursue end users (a very expensive tactic of limited value, other than as a scare tactic).
2. Incentivize end users to stop illeagally trading files, by offering reasonable alternatives (Hey, it worked with me. I'm a Rhapsody subscriber).
3. Pursue new legislation that specifically outlaws providing clients to services such as Napster, Kazaa. (of questionable effectiveness)
Despite some first amendment, and political obstacles, I think that the only reasonable business decision for the record and movie industries is option #3. Options 1 and 2 might provide some modest degree of mitigation to the erosion of industry revenues, but only option 3 has the potential to address the issue head on.
As much as I hate the notion of more regulation on this issue, I think that from a business perspective the RIAA and MPAA need to immediately beseige capital hill. Waiting for the appeal before doing so would be suicidal.
This means that we have to be ready to counter any such effort.
ONLY Grokster and Morpheus! (Score:4, Insightful)
However, Grokster were 'let off the hook' by the court mainly because they do nothing but license the FastTrack software from Kazaa (Sharman) and have *no* access to its source code (I didn't know this), and so could do nothing to help prevent copyright infringement by its use. Furthermore, they apparently no longer operate any root supernodes, and just use Kazaa's. Kazaa operate these root supernodes AND have access to the sourcecode for the client, which could (sigh) be used the cripple the product and use 1001 ways to try and identify a copyrighted work and prevent it from being shared. We could see a lawsuit against Sharman Networks in the future, and if Kazaa goes down, so does Grokster (which I think is a shame because FastTrack is a fantastic network design). Morpheus (or StreamCast) should no longer be considered in the same group; it's just a Gnutella client.
If they made the code opensource, and allowed public lists of supernodes to be published, then they'd have an unbreakable (as Gnutella) P2P network with a much better, more efficient design! Alas, I suspect that the kind of money they're making from ad revenues will prevent this, and ultimately they're more likely to go down the ultra-censorship route if forced to by the courts.
Lets all thank EFF! (Score:5, Interesting)
They did it, and we should donate money to them to thank them!
I'm going to donate $20. I want to see each one of you who posted a msg here saying "Wahoo" donate at least $20.
Re:Lets all thank EFF! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wahoo!
Re:HUGE news (Score:4, Informative)
No, the ISP (Verizon) case is absolutely nothing like this one. The judge in this decision very clearly states that illegal copyright infringement is going on, just that it's not the responsibility of the software provider to police this. That's a good decision.
So whose responsibility is the illegal copying? The person doing the copying, of course! In other words, it's the ISP users who are being protected by Verizon that are really responsible for their actions, and should be responsible for their actions. This is also good.
So why is Verizon fighting this? The key issue in that case is that in order to compel the identity of the users, the RIAA is saying they can just say they need the info. No judicial oversight, no review, no nothing except RIAA saying "we need it." And that is fundamentally wrong. You're putting ISPs at the mercy of another private organization who can decide on whatever whim they want that they can violate the ISP users privacy.
So it's not an issue of copyrighted file sharing being "ok". These two cases address entirely separate issues, so shouldn't be confused!
And in neither of the two cases does anyone claim that sharing copyrighted files is ok.
Whats the difference?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The VCR is a program and cable provides the service allowing illegal copies to be recorded onto your VCR.
So should Cable be sued too?
Wait no, Cable is owned by time warner of the RIAA.
Close.... (Score:3, Insightful)
UPS, FedEx, the USPS, any telephony carrier, and the US Department of Transportation have to pony up their records in similar situations...don't they?
Not without a court order, they don't. That is the point of the case.
Re:*stunning*? (Score:3, Insightful)
You now have 4 p2p networks that are legal for trading files. Certainly a change from when Napster was in the same position.
Re:Im just waiting... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA lawyer: "Your honor, these records show that Microsoft knowingly aided and abetted.."
Bill Gates: "Shut your pie hole loser, or I'll beat you with this stack of hundred dollar bills."
RIAA lawyer: "Your honor, I object to this treatment!"
Judge: "I believe Mr. Gates told you to shut your pie hole counsel."
Re:Im just waiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, five years later, a clone of it will appear on Linux and make headline news on Slashdot.
Sorry, can't resist the temptation... (Score:5, Funny)
Then, five years later, a clone of it will appear on Linux and make headline news on Slashdot.
Then, five hours later, a clone of the headline on slashdot appears on slashdot...
Sorry, I really could not resist the temptation...
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Insightful)
It would mean that it's not Verizon's responsiblity to police their users. I'm not sure that this would apply in the Verizon case though. I guess it would mean, tough, that Verizon would be under no obligation to hand over user info to the RIAA just because they think h
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Knew of the infringen
Re:Correction! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that it really matters, but if you're going to make a silly correction, make sure it is actually true.
Re:Hah (Score:3, Funny)