http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/
Court tells RIAA and Congress to let P2P software thrive
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago
Published Thursday 19th August 2004 20:29 GMT


The same court that once helped shutdown Napster delivered a punishing blow today to the record labels, confirming an earlier decision that P2P networks are legal. The court then went one step further to say it's unwise to alter copyright law in a way that could stifle innovation just to suit well-established players in a market, given the ways in which technology often changes the market for the better in the long run.


In total, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco ruled that makers of decentralized P2P software should not be held responsible for their users' actions. While sometimes used to download copyrighted material, P2P software is also used in a number of non-infringing ways. In addition, the software makers cannot control the behavior of their users. With these factors in mind, the court rejected the record labels' appeal against an earlier ruling by a Los Angeles judge that allowed companies such as Grokster and StreamCast to continue distributing their software without legal repercussions.





"Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment," the Ninth Circuit wrote in its decision (PDF). "In this case, the Software Distributors have not only shown that their products are capable of substantial noninfringing uses, but that the uses have commercial viability."


Even more striking was the court's warning to the record companies around the issue of changing copyright laws. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is currently working with Senator Orrin Hatch on something called the Induce Act, which would tighten laws around copyright infringement. The act has met with a great deal of criticism as it threatens to make devices such as the iPod illegal. However, bowing to the economic needs of the RIAA - which argues that it has lost billions through file trading even though a Harvard study found no evidence of these losses - would be short sighted, according to the Ninth Circuit.


"The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement," the court wrote. "Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context."


"Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude."


Well said.


The court, as in the past, pointed to the old Sony Betamax decision in which the Supreme Court said the video copying device had enough non-infringing uses to warrant its existence as a legal product. Similarly, P2P software can be used to send all types of files between users.


"One striking example provided by the Software Distributors is the popular band Wilco, whose record company had declined to release one of its albums on the basis that it had no commercial potential," the court wrote. "Wilco repurchased the work from the record company and made the album available for free downloading, both from its own website and through the software user networks. The result sparked widespread interest and, as a result, Wilco received another recording contract."


P2P software can also help reduce distribution costs and provides a new mechanism for distributing music, photos and documents.


"The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution," the court wrote.


Unfortunately for consumers, this decision will likely lead to more lawsuits from the RIAA against individuals. The record labels argue that making P2P services legal has forced it to attack the direct infringers - i.e., you, me and grandma.


If current P2P software worked like Napster I in a centralized way, then the courts would likely have shut down the likes of Grokster and StreamCast. Instead, the Ninth Circuit found there is no centralized control of this current software, meaning the software makers cannot boot users even if they wanted to. In addition, even if the software making entities disappeared completely, their code would live on.

Now, I can go home and really enjoy that beer.

Huzzah!! Somebody with a brain!!!

"The court then went one step further to say it's unwise to alter copyright law in a way that could stifle innovation just to suit well-established players in a market, given the ways in which technology often changes the market for the better in the long run."

ROCKIN'

"Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude."

Even the court recognized the fraility of the "apparent" abuses which is based on the ludicrous presumption that every download is a lost sale.

excellent point pinemikey!

From the article above (quoting the 9th circuit court):

"Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude."

That is paragraph which bears repeating and should be sent to Hatch thousands of times.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040203_oral_arg.mp3
One can download the excellent oral argument by the EFF's counsel,
Fred Von Lohmann at the link above.

15.6 meg

Here's the PDF of the decision
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf

Maybe the judges have been up late at night browsing the forums of Boycott RIAA.com.

"Hey, Judge Bob, have a look at this cool stuff posted by Codewarrior" said Judge Ralph as he had another swallow of Dr. Pepper (TM) to wash down that slice of late night Pizza Hut (TM).

This sounds good to me!!!!!

What those P2P networks really need is a way for files to be rated, similar to what they do on Dmusic. Then someone can search for highest ratings to find new bands or authors, or whoever that creates quality work. It also would need a way for users to link straight to a band or authors website to make a CD, DVD, or book purchase. This would give the creator control over distribution of the physical works.

"The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution," the court wrote."

In otherwords, unlike what the majors want the public to believe, it isn't just songs that are passed on p2p networks. That there are indeed many other types of files shared and that many do not have any stigma of copywrite infringement attached to them.

In fact, in spite of the ruling that mp3's are close enough to be recognised to a copywrited material, it is still a question in my mind that is actually correct. Mostly in the past all infringed material was a direct copy. Something that mp3, by its nature can not be.

The part of "significantly reducing the distribution costs" is something the majors have really waffled on. On one hand saying it is putting literally thousands of people out of business but on the otherhand encouraging the same action. From sweetheart distribution deals with major chain stores to encouraging on line buying.

Economics say that folks will pay the least they have to and given a choice will follow that trail. By authorizing on line stores, they themselves are cutting out the middle man and thereby killing business for the thousands.

"reducing the centralized control of that distribution"

The very heart of the matter is here. Without that centralized control the majors really have lost their purpose. Since they have given up the steady sales incomes that were not the big money bringers, they have lost the slow steady income. The income that came from the single, the older one hit groups, and the classics that didn't quite fit the mould in some manner, be it not spouting the majors line or not wanting to be censored to death in what they were trying to say.

Not being censored so strongly was one of the very things that created followings of fans. The artist saying to the nation what the fan felt but did not have the audience to say it too. This lead to a connection with those artists. Something that is nearly totally missing in todays music.

Here the court affirms that it is not really necessary the majors control all aspects of music from creation, distribution, and sales. One of the largest drivers to force artists to sign on the line if they wished to be heard.

I hear the bell tolling, it tolls for the majors...

horray

I'm feeling really good about this decision. Clearly, the RIAA hasn't learned their lesson. Glad to see the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Grokster and Morpheus.

Just because the RIAA is afraid of technology doesn't mean that innovators should be stifled, or that great potential should be quashed.

The RIAA thinks it is invincible in court, but recent events obviously prove otherwise.

:-:~ Phantom

(Huge sigh of relief) So, there is still some sanity in this country. Time to celebrate! Each and every win is important. Yahoo!!!!!

Let's not get to smug about the decision. The 9th Circus (yes, I do mean Circus) Court of Appeals is the most over turned appeals court out there.

While this may be a win, it's not game, set, match. The only way this will stand is if the Supreme Court ether affirms the decision, or declines to hear an appeal.

However, this is good news.

ditto what Lothar2 said - the 9th Circuit has a reputation of being a bunch of left-wing liberals, and they are consequently frequently overturned by the more conservative Supremes.

"The 7th and 9th Circuits disagree (albeit in partially in dicta) on the relevance of willful blindness to secondary liability;”

From the Lessig-Wu blog...

this basically hints that a supreme court case may go differently by virtue of the fact that streamcast deliberately made their clients unfettered and took a blind eye to what was going on.

oops you used a copyrighted name...must pay me 50$ hehe. good stuff!

awehr, Lothar2, bluerhythmjo...

Come on.....smile for today, (you gotta know the riaa ain't smiling)... tomorrow will take care of itself! For now, it's a win.....a good day!

A win is a win!

And I am a happier person today for this decision. No, the battle is far from oveer, but for the rest of the day and night I am resting and celebrating!

Court tells RIAA and Congress to let P2P software thrive

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/

These judges are bought and paid for!

Yeah, by the American public, mroop.

That was sarcasm. Now you know how stupid you all sound when you say the same thing. And that's pretty damn stupid. : )

So why do you think we don't know sarcasm when we hear it? Lighten up...it's a good day.

Way past my bedtime, so sweet dreams, everyone...even mroop (and that's not sarcasm).

I'm as light as a buttefly's wing. I knew this was how the ruling would go, so it's no big deal to me. Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite.

These judges are bought and paid for!


Hmm seems like the RIAA to me doesnt it

Of course, Mroop knows all and we're stupid.

When you say that judges are bought and paid for just because a decision doesn't go your way then yeah, you are stupid.

Simply because a decision has not gone our way ...
I see, that must be the ONLY possible reason anyone here could think our much honored congress folk are bought and paid for.
Besides, you were the only one to bring up bought and paid for judges, albeit with sarcasm, Mr dicklick.
How's the fam .. btw

"I see, that must be the ONLY possible reason anyone here could think our much honored congress folk are bought and paid for."

Newsflash for retards - judges are not members of Congress.

Or, should I say, what's left of it

.. piece by piece, bit by bit, the struggle goes on mroop.. chill with the "stupid.. retard" rhetoric.. it does not strengthen your points.. which are legit...