Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Holy ***************, that is stunning.

Apparently there's hope for our judicial system yet. At least until somebody higher up cashes their check and overturns the ruling.

 

This will be overturned, because it's the incorrect decision. The primary reason why these programs exist is to share copyrighted material, and to ignore that is crazy.

Here's the heart of the judge's argument: 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.

"Can be used" and "are used" are very, very different things. His own examples are proof of that: The court has ruled that VHS copies (which, by the way, are always inferior to the original transmission -- something not true for digital audio) for personal use are OK, but it doesn't mean that you can make thousands of copies for your friends. Copy machines that copy one page at a time are generally clear under the "bits and pieces" element of copyright law, but you can be sure that if someone invented a copy machine that copied entire books with minimal effort, it'd be a violation.

The only reasonable analogy that I can come up with is this: If you let your neighbor borrow your car and the neighbor uses the car to rob a bank, you are not liable because you had no idea that that's what your car was going to be used for. However, if your neighbor is a known bank robber and the only time he ever goes out is to rob a bank, you shouldn't let him borrow your car because you should have a reasonable expectation that he's going to use it to commit a crime.

The day that Grokster is used primarily to share family photos and high school garage band demos instead of copyrighted material, it's the day that Grokster goes out of business.

 

I'll concede this point.

However, tools are inherently morally neutral. From my point of view, if the tool has a demonstrable viable and legal use, then it shouldn't be unreasonably restricted.

Additionally, there is the claim that file-swapping cuts into media conglomerate profits, and not only do I not think that's been shown, I don't think it's true.

 

If I can show that I can use a machine gun to open a can of soda for my personal consumption, does that make it legal for me to own one? This is where the reasonable expectations (aka common sense) judgment should come in: If you look at the use of the tool and see that 95% of it is for trading copyrighted material, you cannot tell me that the other 5% of legal swapping overrides the millions of violations.

I agree with you, but it's an entirely different argument. The way that copyright laws are written now makes it unequivocal to me that all of these file-sharing programs are aiding and abetting illegal activity.

 

See this bothers me. Its not the judicial systems fault. They just interpret the laws on the books. If you want change, take it to the legislature.

 

Is copyright law broken? Yes. And it keeps getting worse every time Disney gives money to lawmakers.

But judges do interpret the law. There is some flex room.

 

Meanwhile, MSNBC's front page and article headline muck it up badly:

Quick, start up your old copy of Napster while you can!

 

At the core of this issue is the technology itself.
Unless it's decided that participants in copyright-infringing file-sharing will be prosecuted, the only way to stop any of it is to outlaw the file-sharing technology itself. Otherwise, it will be just be the justice department playing whack-a-mole with the different software manufacturers and programs that keep popping up...

 

Come on. I download mp3s all the time, but it's obvious that the recording industry is losing profits.

 

I agree. I haven't bought a new CD in over a year. And when I did I used my Tower Records gift certificate...
I'm not into liner notes or CD cover artwork, so there's really no reason for me to buy a CD in a store if I can find some clean mp3's of the same songs. The difference in audio quality is negligible...

 

This is exactly why the information economy is a joke and always will be. The switch in America to creating and exporting information and information services has been and will continue to be a failure.

 

Re: Re: Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Still peddling oil futures?

Let me know who the richest man in the world is.

 

> Let me know who the richest man in the world is.

What does that have to do with anything? For example, it is impossible to base an economy on gambling, but that doesn't prevent the individuals who run casinos from getting rich.

 

How much of what you've downloaded would you have bought if you couldn't download?

I download MP3s, but rarely do I download something I'd otherwise buy. I'll be honest, tho - the stuff I would buy is usually not available for purchase in local stores.

And in some cases I did buy something after a downloaded "preview".

Of course, the MPAA claim that movie revenues are being hit by file sharing is total crap.

There happens to be a correlation between rising downloads and shrinking music sales, but it's not that strong (I'm betting not even significant), and certainly not related. I mean, look at all the crapola being pushed by labels nowadays.

 

Re: Re: Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Of course you're totally wrong. Not that I give a fvck about them, but so many people are downloading music that they would have purchased. Me, for example.

The solution is for them to adapt. I would pay for an online subscription, but I'm not paying $15 for a disc that I'll end up putting on my computer anyways.

 

No, but only a fool would dismiss the entire software industry.

 

Since I'm not a pot smoker and don't subscribe to High Times, I'm not up on this exciting piece of legislation. But generally, I think that using FBI resources to bust potheads is a waste of taxpayer monery.

Could bongs possibly have a purpose other than dope smoking?

 

So if this stands up, which I think is doubtful, all thats left for the industry to do is to start suing individuals that file swap. I think this ruling leaves that wide open.

Very costly considering there are millions of downloaders. I wonder what that would be like if the entertainment industry picked like 100-200 file swappers to sue at random. I wonder if that would send a terrifying chill down the rest of the swappers and scare them into stopping lest they be next.

Another tactic I have seen is when somebody floods the swapping service with songs that look like what you are looking for but really are just something else entirely. Makes it harder to find what your looking for but obviosuly just temporarily. Maybe the entertainment industry will start hiring people to spread bogus song copies over the networks.

Mike

 

There are legal head shops (at least here in Los Angeles on Melrose and in Venice) thast sell pipes and bongs. Don't they claim they are for tobacco?

Tobacco through a bong...sounds great doesn't it?

 

You know what? Fvck the laws. Fvck the copyrights. Fvck the labels and their greedy CEOs and fvck bands like Metallica.

I download MP3s and I'm not ashamed of it. Last time I bought a CD was more than 6 months ago and that was in a second hand store. As a matter of fact, I haven't bought a new cd in years. Why? Because I'm fvcking sick of being ripped off, that's why.

A CD costs a few cents to make, an album can be recorded for under 10 grand(all figures in Canadian funds, just multiply by 2/3) and there are countless examples out there that you need not have a behemoth of a PR campaign to sell an album if the music is good.

Why then, do my CDs usually cost in excess of $20? If Elektra doesn't want me downloading Metallica songs, they should ensure that their CDs aren't $25 a pop. And it's not even about the money for me. My family is quite affluent, and I could always easily afford to buy CDs, but I don't want to, out of principle.

Record labels pocket most of the profits from CD sales and in return, they fvck with their artists, trying to influence the creative process, decisions within the band, forcing them to tour incessantly and make promotional appearances, demanding albums and singles like there was no tomorrow. And what services do they provide? Like I said before, you don't need a massive PR campaign to sell an album, and even if you pump 25 million into promotion of an album(cough cough invincible cough), it doesn't guarantee success.

I don't for a second deny that downloading MP3 is illegal, but quite frankly, I couldn't care less. Two wrongs sometimes make a right, and stealing from thieves and crooks is fine in my book. Us was built on outlaw tradition. Many of its heroes were men of dubious moral character and shady behavious.
So, yeah, I ain't a crook, I'm a fvcking American hero.

 

Re: Re: Re: Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

You're wrong because i use Kazaa to scout out new stuff. I download things, see if I like them, and then go out and buy the record.


How is downloading a single any different from seeing the music video for it? Music vids of songs can come out before the cd, and are a tool to spur sales. I use both to make my selections.

 

Well you know what? Fvck you. Fvck you and your whining. Fvck your bitching, your pissing and your moaning. Fvck you for hating Metallica, the greatest metal band ever. Fvck you for hating them because they chose to take a stand against Knapster.

I have no problem with cd prices, because i only buy about one a month, so 12 bucks at best buy isn't going to break my wallet, nor is it a "rip off."
Bands pour their essence into a record and you go and rip it off. You are the one ripping people off. They make millions, but they don't steal that money from people. Millions of people choose to buy a record and make the band wealthy.


EDIT-25 bucks for a cd? Hah! Maybe you should stop shopping at "F*** Me In the Ass and I'll Give You Money For it Mart." Seriously though, stop shopping at Sam Goody or other mall music stores. I always go to Best Buy, where cds are anywhere from 9-15 dollars.