"A federal appeals court Tuesday heard arguments in an entertainment industry appeal of a case that may decide the fate of file sharing on the Internet.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena reviewed the appeal of a lower court's ruling that cleared file-swapping services Grokster and Morpheus of copyright infringements occurring on their networks.

The appeal stems from a suit filed in 2001. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Music Publishers Association of America (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association (RIAA) sued Kazaa, Grokster and Streamcast Networks, owner of Morpheus, for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. In April 2002, the court ruled in favor of Grokster and Streamcast. The claims against Kazaa and its acquirer, Sharman Networks, were separated from this suit and are still pending.

In his decision in that Los Angeles district court case, Judge Stephen Wilson wrote, "Just as in Napster, many of those who use (Grokster and Morpheus) software do so to download copyrighted media files, including those owned by the plaintiffs and thereby infringe Plaintiffs' rights of reproduction and distribution. Thus, for purposes of these motions, plaintiffs have established direct infringement of their copyrighted works by some end-users of Defendants' software."

However, Wilson was guided by a landmark 1984 Supreme Court ruling that said use of new technology to infringe copyrights did not justify an outright ban on that technology. Wilson said Grokster and Morpheus couldn't control how people use their software.

Brian O'Neal, a spokesperson for Streamcast Networks, said that the Morpheus software is very useful for distributing a wide variety of legal material.

For example, he said, someone may have generated material he'd like to share, perhaps about a hobby, but not know how to build a Web site. "[With Morpheus], he could choose to put it in a shared directory that's safe and secure. This concept of distributed computing is far more efficient [than the central file server model] -- you don't rely on the power of a gatekeeper."

No executives from the RIAA, NMPA or MPAA were available for comment. A statement released by the MPAA said, "This case is not about Plaintiffs embracing or opposing technological innovation. It is about the conduct of businesses that intentionally misuse commonly available Internet 'peer-to-peer' technology to profit from copyrights they do not own for works they did not create."

The industry associations argue that, since Grokster and Morpheus block some files, such as viruses, they can and should block illegally shared files as well.

Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, a lobbying organization for file-sharing software vendors, said that statement is deliberately misleading, because filtering for pornography or other material is set up by individuals on their own computers. "
read more

RIAA/MPAA hears a decision/s against their favor, yet still go on as if they never heard it.

if the court rules against them the industry will still attemp to find loopholes or just disreguard the law. just like they are currently doing in the new round of lawsuits

I am curious to see how this turns out. If technology is deemed responsible for "crimes" committed with it, then VCR's, DVD players, blank CDs, blank DVD's, black tapes, copy machines, disk drives, hard drives, search engines, directories, cameras, digital cameras, film, monitors, tvs, speakers, microphones, and a few other odds and ends must now be controlled/outlawed.

I wonder if they're ready for these kinds of implications.

Firearms, knives, and fists will have to be banned to because they are used to commit crimes too.

Lets outlaw knives cuz they can be used to kill

oh and outlaw cars, guns, baseball bats as well

xeroxes, and scanners, and carbon-paper

when will this bullshit stop

Exactly how is Morpheous supposed to KNOW that an MP3 file is being illegally shared? The only way would be to have listing of file names, artists, etc., which would be too cumbersome for them to do. Stopping ALL trading of MP3 files would be illegal and show the RIAA's true colors... blocking competition from independents!

I want my ISP to block all the spam and viruses at the server level...
I got over 500 e-mails today (as usual) ...sometimes I get 1000 in a day...
about 4 are good, the rest are crap...probably about 300 Viagra ones, and many others offering a new way to enlarge the male appendage....lol...

"The industry associations argue that, since Grokster and Morpheus block some files, such as viruses, they can and should block illegally shared files as well."

What a stupid argument. For that to happen every user would have to have a list of files they want filtered. You cannot just generalise and say 'block MP3's by RIAA members'.

What bunch of retards.

I think it's more important to block the toadies of the RIAA like BayTSP, who have repeatedly, with malice of forethought, violated the End User Agreement of Kazaa, and other P2P services.

shows how little the industry knows about technology

Code, could you give that whole "copyright infringment is not piracy" speach? I've got this guy in another forum and you word that argument perfectly.
also, you will be given credit.

Piracy is an illegal act defined under Title 18, Chapter 81, Section 1652
and has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but has to do with murder and robbery on the high seas,. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized copying and/or distribution of copyrighted materials.

Neither the DMCA nor the Copyright Act of 1976 contain the word "piracy".
~Code

thanks Code, going to educate at least a little of the masses today.

thank you tasadar,..you're doing great my friend!

thank you tasadar,..you're doing great my friend!

"to profit from copyrights they do not own for works they did not create." The RIAA lawyers said this about p2p net's Who forces artists and bands to sign over their rights??? Who creates the music but gets little from it's creation???? A statement like this describe's the major label's to tee!!!!!!!!!!!!

"This case is not about Plaintiffs embracing or opposing technological innovation. It is about the conduct of businesses that intentionally misuse commonly available Internet 'peer-to-peer' technology to profit from copyrights they do not own for works they did not create."

How about the conduct of businesses that intentionally misuse our country's legal system to ensure industry stability and large profit margins for investors that do no create the works and scammed the copyrights out of the hands of the actual creaters?

I really don't understand their statement in the first place. Mainly because the firms in question did not "misuse commonly available Internet 'peer-to-peer' technology" they created the technology, made it available, and have not made a dime through the reselling of music. They have made money from the use of their software which they do own the copyrights to. Use which is not under their control.

You hit the nail on the head DeadMan,
Retarded Idiots Association of America

I swear, it's
Recording Industry Assholes of America

Frankly, these alphabet-soup lobbies DO NOT CARE about the implications about their anti-technology bigotry; they are so intent on getting their way, it wouldn't matter in the least to them that they'd be throwing the proverbial baby out with the equally proverbial bathwater. If we were to be descended to a technological Dark Ages should a decision be rendered in favor of these entertainment-media conglomerates, they wouldn't even give it a second thought -- or a third, or fourth . . . as you may guess, their idea of "control," in essence, is reducing everybody and everything else to inferior, second-class, subservient status.

Besides, don't you smell "collective guilt" in the alphabet-soup lobbies' mentality viz P2P networks, as I do?