During a lively argument, justices wondered aloud whether such lawsuits might have discouraged past inventions like copy machines, videocassette recorders and iPod portable music players — all of which can be used to make illegal duplications of copyrighted documents, movies and songs.


Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the same software that can be used to steal copyrighted materials offered at least conceptually "some really excellent uses" that are legal.


Justice Antonin Scalia maintained that a ruling for entertainment companies could mean that if "I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."


While seeming leery of allowing lawsuits, the court also appeared deeply troubled by efforts of the companies that manufacture so-called file-sharing software to encourage Internet piracy and profit from it.


Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pressed a software lawyer on the question of whether profits from trafficking in stolen property can rightfully be used to help finance a young technology business. "That seems wrong to me," he said.


Two lower courts have sided with the software makers, Grokster Inc. and StreamCast Networks. How the justices rule could redefine how consumers can watch television shows and films and listen to songs that increasingly are delivered in digital formats.


Supporters of file-sharing technology say a ruling against the software companies could effectively give the entertainment industry a legal veto over up-and-coming gadgets; they fear the threat of expensive lawsuits could hamper development of new devices.


The case has star power on both sides.


Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and other musicians are backing the major recording labels, saying their livelihoods are threatened if millions of people can obtain their songs for nothing.


About 20 independent recording artists, including musician and producer Brian Eno, rockers Heart and rapper-activist Chuck D, support the file-sharing technology. They say it allows greater distribution of their music and limits the power of huge record companies.


Regardless of the outcome, it still won't be legal to download copyrighted materials over the Internet without permission, though tens of millions of computer users do so each day. And any ruling won't affect thousands of copyright lawsuits filed individually against Internet users caught sharing music and movies online.


But a victory for the entertainment companies would allow lawsuits that could drive companies that make file-sharing software out of business. It also would effectively overturn rules that have governed technology companies for more than two decades: Manufacturers can't be sued for copyright violations committed by customers using their products illegally.


Dan Glickman, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said the film industry will keep trying to get consumers to buy legal digital movies. "Consumers want a legal, hassle-free, reasonable-cost way to get their products online," he said in an interview Monday with editors from The Associated Press.


Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, told the AP editors: "We are doing all the things we should be doing to move into this digital age. That is true no matter what the outcome" of the case.


Still, the entertainment companies face an uphill battle with the high court.


The trial judge and a U.S. appeals court quoted the Supreme Court in ruling the same file-sharing software millions of people use to steal music and movies also can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They reasoned that gave the software's manufacturers protection from copyright lawsuits based on acts by their customers.





The trial court in Los Angeles and San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court "Betamax" case. The justices ruled Sony Corp. couldn't be sued for copyright infringement if some customers used their VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

Entertainment companies argue the file-sharing companies should not have blanket protection from copyright lawsuits, especially when they know about and profit from wide-scale piracy. Court documents said some file-sharing software companies earned millions of dollars annually from advertisements built into their software, and ad revenues climb as more people use the software.

The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.

aw poo, I may have jumped the gun... no ruling yet

Hmm... now THIS blog should be interesting:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/146

Bloggers:

Ted Cohen, EMI
Steve Gordon, Steve Gordon Law
Rags Gupta, Live365
Andy Breeding, Author

They will rule in a few months, not now.

Is this an AP story? It sounds almost exactly like what I read on the New York Times site.

independent,
you may have jumped the gun, but at least the Justices are talking about some of the substantial issues re: us lowly consumers & not focusing on the RIAA/MPAA's so-called "lost profits."

Yup, AP story. First thing I found that contained what looked like quotes from the proceedings. More to follow as I/we (you guys help find stuff too) locate it.

I really really wish they would allow cameras.

It's not stealing, it's copying. Unauthorized copying is called infringment. If stealing and infringement were the same thing, then only one of the two words would exist. They're different, so they aren't interchangeable, so stop pretending like they are.



"file-sharing companies should not have blanket protection from copyright lawsuits, especially when they know about and profit from wide-scale piracy."

Neither should Sony for their production and sale of CD burners. Maybe someone should tell the RIAA that they know about and profit from wide-scale piracy.

And what about the LEGAL uses of "file-sharing companies". Don't the P2P companies make money from them too? How do you distinguish which is which??

You CANNOT shut down a technology at the expense of even a small amount of legitimate business. The Supreme Court has said that themselves. P2P has the potential for a HUGE amount of potential legitamate business.

"You CANNOT shut down a technology at the expense of even a small amount of legitimate business. The Supreme Court has said that themselves."

Wrong! The SC said "substantial non-infringing use". Substantial does not equal "small amount".

"but at least the Justices are talking about some of the substantial issues re: us lowly consumers & not focusing on the RIAA/MPAA's so-called "lost profits.""

I am sure they are focusing on both. You may not agree with these guys, but they are not dummies. Except for Clarence Thomas. : )

mr oopie, I would say the number of artists who want their material shared and are being shared on p2p networks is substantial. Didn't the number of artists offering briefs in favor of Grokster outnumber the old has-beens who filed statements in favor of the Micro Penis Association of America?

"I would say the number of artists who want their material shared and are being shared on p2p networks is substantial."

I don't go on p2p, but I will agree with you. I was only disagreeing INAL's use of the term "small amount", which is incorrect.

I'm sure there's plenty of artists who are OK with their stuff on p2p - it's too bad nobody wants to listen to it! Even if p2p had 50% legal to share files and 50% not legal to share music files, you would still have 99% of the music files actually being downloaded that would be RIAA material. Not that I am defending the RIAA, just stating a probability.

And the reason is that most people are sheep when it comes to their listening habits. They want to download something they have heard previously and enjoyed - that means it is RIAA stuff that they heard already on the radio or on the TV.

Top swaps on bigchampagne.com:

Mario
50 Cent
Mariah Carey
Usher
Will Smith
The Killers
Akon
Jennifer Lopez
The Game
50 Cent

Kinda makes you lose faith in humanity, huh? : )

"I'm sure there's plenty of artists who are OK with their stuff on p2p - it's too bad nobody wants to listen to it!"

Trolls. Can't shoot 'em...

George - I am sorry that nobody is interested in your homages to Dennis DeYoung. That is not my fault! : )

I notice "50 cent" at the number 2 and ALSO at the number 10 position...that's odd, but even more odd is that, I've seen 50 cent on Sat. Nite Live...
he is TOTALLY without talent as a singer/rapper/ whatever...

Why anyone would waste any time downloading this crap is a mystery.

Because it's quite danceable. I downloaded some fitty and snoop. I wish the song had clean lyrics though. My 14 year old nephew and I like to sing along but have to mumble over the nasty words.

Those are 2 different songs by 50 Cent - I was too lazy to type the songs. But yeah, 50 Cent sucks big time. His first hit "In Da Club" was a really cool tune, but that is because it was put together by Dr. Dre, the only really talented guy in hip hop - in the opinion of this rap hating suburban guy white guy. Dr. Dre is doing an album with Burt Bacharach! That should be interesting.

IMO, substantial doesn't necessarily have to refer to amount. It could mean quality of the use.

Popjustic kindly breaks down the true meaning behind 50 Cent's crappy new single...

In their review of 50 Cent's new album, The Guardian asked, "He can't rap, he can't write, he can't even insult people... what use is 50 Cent?" DUDES! That's like, so scathing! Because everyone who's heard Fiddy's new single, 'Candy Shop', knows that 50 Cent is really useful for at least one thing - fucking!

Seriously, viewers, this guy just amazing at having sex. He's just unstoppable! (Although of course if you were a lady and you were having sex with 50 and you asked him to stop, he would do just that. There's nothing remotely rapey about this guy!)

In the wholly impartial 'Candy Shop', Fiddy employs various 'metaphors' to explain how brilliant he is at fucking. For example!

"I take you to the candy shop, I'll let you lick the lollypop."
Trans: "Ooh my penis is quite big, you can suck it."

"One taste of what I got, I'll have you spending all you got."
Trans: "My sperm tastes nice."

"You can have it your way, how do you want it?"
Trans: "I am versatile in my ability to fuck people. I know lots of different ways. There's missionary, for a start. And the other one. Seriously, there are as many as several positions in which I can - and have - fucked women."

"You gon' back that thing up or should I push up on it?"
Trans: "Are you going to move your vagina towards my penis, or should I move my penis towards your vagina?" (nb: This may seem as if 50 Cent is not masterful in bed, but it in fact simply goes to showcase he versatility as a sex-maker - see above!)

"If you be a nympho, I'll be a nympho."
Trans: "My rhymes are almost as innovative as my lovemaking."

"Got the magic stick, I'm the love doctor."
Trans: "I've got a penis."

"And we gon' sip til every bubble in the bottle is gone."
Trans: "We are, or rather 'you are', going to suck my penis until all the sperm has come out of it, which will no doubt take ages because a) My cock is really big, and b) I have lots of sperm in me. Seriously, you could go whitewater rafting in my scrotum."

"I'm a seasoned vet when it come to this shit"
Trans: "I know how to charm a lady."

"After you work up a sweat you can play with the stick."
Trans: "I've still got a penis."

"Isn't it ironic how erotic it is to watch em in thongs?"
Trans: "I don't really understand words very well."

The saddest thing about 'Candy Shop' is the line "I melt in your mouth girl, not in your hands". If it was anybody else you'd applaud their clever M&M gag; in 50 Cent's case you know you're dealing with the world's most thick and mundane rapper, and that he hardly even realises why the line's funny, and it's all a bit sad really.

btw, I saw the Justice Kennedy quote as actually "unlawfully expropriated property'' -- not stealing.

hmm...that could be why I like his songs LOL

"IMO, substantial doesn't necessarily have to refer to amount. It could mean quality of the use."

I think it does refer to amount, although I am too lazy to review the opinion so I will concede that your interpretation may be correct - but only cuz I'm lazy!

I think they meant it as something of substance (as oppsed to incidental), because the percentage of time shifting wasn't that high.

And I'd like to know just how Justice Ginsburg is going to prove inducement. aiy yi yi

mroop

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

"Whatever the future percentage of legal versus illegal home-use recording might be, an injunction which seeks to deprive the public of the very tool or article of commerce capable of some noninfringing use would be an extremely harsh remedy, as well as one unprecedented in copyright law." 480 F. Supp., at 468. "

WRONG!!! Perhaps you should review the Sony Betamax case. The amount of legal vs. legal is not the decision maker. Its whether or not the infringing device CAN be used for non-infringing uses.

"Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55 , does not support respondents' novel theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. "

Sounds like doom for MGM.

mroop,

I suggest using the RIAA's definition of "substantial." They were only going to go after those sharing a substantial amount of material. What is the smallest amount shared by someone who was sued? You said substantial does not mean "small amount" but I'll bet it does. Not that it really matters, unless I were a sc judge like I wish I was right now. Because then I'd be informing the RIAA that I let them decide what "substantial" was.

"WRONG!!! Perhaps you should review the Sony Betamax case"

Nice try Perry Mason, but you are WRONG AGAIN!

Are you too stupid to realize that you quoted the SC quoting a lower court? It would seem so!

Here is the pertinent quote:

"Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. ... The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the District Court a significant number of them would be noninfringing."

Try again, dumbass! : )

My roomate this year loves his BET and his MTV. I am of the belief that tv makes you stupid. My gpa has plummeted this semester. I wasn't even watching and it still made me stupid.

I know way too many rap songs right now. One of them is ok, the other million make me ill - and I don't mean "ill" in that "I'm a rapper and ill is a good thing" kind of way. It's definitely the bad way.

carla's back. hi carla. we thought you were dead. we were worried sick.

Sherm - after a quick perusal of the Betamax case, it seems that substantial or significant refers to the numbers of users using the item for non-infringing purposes - see above quote.

Btw, whatever the Betamax case says really doesn't matter much at this point because this is all being revisited with this Grokster case. I believe that Grokster is going to win.

So, as 50 cent would say, the RIAA can go whitewater rafting in my scrotum.

Sorry for that.

thanks mroop. Too bad we can't use the RIAA's def.

After rereading my quote of Betamax, it looks like I am going to have to hoist myself on my own petard. Substantial does not refer to the number of users, but more likely refers to the use. Forget this thinking stuff, I'm going to do a bong hit and crank some tunes from cd's that I have acquired legally. Damnit, a drummer moved in next store and set up his drum kit in his garage. He just started playing and I can hear it from this room with the windows closed. I might have to sue this jerk. It's not right to play loud drums when the neighbors can hear it.

I'd like to know why the NRA and gun industry isnt backing up p2p.
If a software/gadget maker/inventor can be responsible for the bad uses some people do with the product, gun's maker should be SCARED AS HELL.
They could face many lawsuits.

Any idea?

Because this case has to do with copyright infringement, there is already a separate body of law being developed regarding gun manufacturers liabilty. They have been sued plenty. Do a google search on "gun manufacturers liability" and you'll find plenty.

mroop,
the only people Fiddy Cent is fucking on his new CD are the folks dumb enough to shell out $14 for it.

seriously, how untalented do you have to be to NOT sell a CD? For god's sake, even that talentless turd William Hung sold CDs. Who in the hell would ever ADMIT to buying that talentless piece of shit's CD???

**Top swaps on bigchampagne.com:

Mario
50 Cent
Mariah Carey
Usher
Will Smith
The Killers
Akon
Jennifer Lopez
The Game
50 Cent

Kinda makes you lose faith in humanity, huh?**

OK, point taken. Though I never had any faith in humanity -- I do know a bit of world history, and it'd be stupid to have faith in humanity. Given the record, I have faith in inhumanity. PT Barnum was right. Clearly.

I am warming to the position of many here -- it would be great to get all RIAA material off p2p. That would be the electronic equivalent of a giant enema for the music business. I might go back to p2p then.

"I am warming to the position of many here -- it would be great to get all RIAA material off p2p. That would be the electronic equivalent of a giant enema for the music business."

Welcome to Boycott-Riaa's upper-eschelon

dispite all their posturing and PR campaign the entertainment inustry wouldn't really want their stuff off P2P. They use it to determine their products popularity. free advertising and free product testing. any business would love that. however they'd never admit it.

The really really pathetic thing is that they won't admit it only because they want to charge for p2p.

The RIAA knows that p2p is free advertising for them. The RIAA knows that their slump "coincidentially" coincided with a recession. They know, as I've said before, that p2p helped keep their sales UP during that recession - above where they would have been otherwise. They even use p2p for marketing research, so they can make even more money off of bad cd's.

That's why it's sad. That's not good enough. They've gone to great lengths to also be able to charge users for using p2p (or p2p-like services, like iTunes). P2P has tons of non-infringing uses, and they all seem to benefit the RIAA too.

I'm so mad, I could infringe .. i just might. Give me a xerox machine and a book!!

Very astute observation Sherm! Kudos.

"I'm sure there's plenty of artists who are OK with their stuff on p2p - it's too bad nobody wants to listen to it!"

Let's see...I've heard the Offspring come out in favor of internet downloading in the past, I like listening to them. I like Prince, he's commented something to the effect that he is excited about the possibilities of file-sharing technology and he believes that the true fans will always compensate the artist even if they are downloading. Heart is on the list of artists in this article who support file-sharing technology, I not only like listening to them, but also bought their newest album (it's on the Sovereign Artists label - Non RIAA) and found it to be quite excellent, and let's not forget Hayden's Wall and Electric Gypsy, both of whom I've checked out and enjoyed very much, I'm fairly certain they're both in favor of file-sharing

The Offspring were the most downloaded band on the internet (according to some source that I don't remember) while being the #1 selling album in the country at the same time. p2p sells records.

Thanks for the Nod furiousBall. (Don't forget Tom Barger, all the artists in our "Boycott-Riaa Picks" list...

AND the upcomming list of "Boycott-Riaa Certified Artists" (to be found at under our 'artists' button at the top of the boycott-riaa pages later this week.)

...note: Bands like Heart, Offspring, Prince, and other RIAA enslaved misfortunates who lean twords our side of the issue will NOT be eligable for Boycott-Riaa certification, but MIGHT recieve "honorable mention" on that upcomming list.

and don't forget leflaw, he's a musician too!

(Folks, furiousBall is now Dmusic's Director of Business Affairs. If you want to buy some VALUABLE ads at Boycott-Riaa or at Dmusic, he's the guy to see!)

oops,

not sure if furrball316 and furiousBall are one and the same.

(Appologies if not.)

Nope, sorry, not the same, but you can call me whatever you want if there's a paycheck attached to the title Truth be told, I just got annoyed at the insinuation that there's nobody worth listening to supporting p2p and had to throw my 1.25 cents worth (inflation)in. btw, Heart is no longer an "RIAA enslaved misfortunate". Their current label is not RIAA according to RIAA Radar. Not really trying to plug Heart per se, just trying to point people in the direction of anything worth listening to that doesn't line the pockets of the fat greedy bastards...errr...I mean RIAA

Sorry bout that furrball, was reading too fast was all. (on a frantic pace these past dozens of hours)

I am still a bit leary about buying "Jupiter's Darling" (Heart's latest) even though I really want to and I even knew all this that you are telling me about it furrball316. Just want to be DAMN sure I do not support the RIAA ever again with ANY purchase I ever make. (Heart is a BIG name band, thus my trepidation.)

(Folks, your Admin/Mod BELIEVES in our "prime directive." I will NOT willingly ever purchase an RIAA tainted product EVER AGAIN!)

...even to the point where I am in "some" doubt about if the product is or is not RIAA.

(I don't ask YOU to be so strict, but DO be somewhat as strict with your purchase decisions.)

Heart is joining us. Watch this space by Thursday.

That's great, Tom. I love Heart! I own their albums on vinyl and their greatest hits on cd. I've been boycotting RIAA artists for almost 2 years now, but my kids bought "Jupiters Darling" for me this past Christmas after seeing that it was "Safe" according to RIAA Radar (just like furrball said above).

mroop

"The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. "

Gee, if they truly review ALL the different potential uses of P2P file sharing, I think they are FAR MORE substantial than those that existed for a VTR (VCR). Thanks for proving my point Mroop. Dumbass.

That is really great Tom. I am a HUGE Heart fan, and was overjoyed when their latest release was free from an RIAA label!! I'd hated not to buy it. Nancy Wilson of Heart has said in an interview before, when talking about Ann's weight problems and how the RIAA label was pushing them about it, that shouldn't this be "about the effen music?" That's why I like them. Even though they may have relented in the late 80's to some degree to the 'look of the band is more important than the music' RIAA theory of selling CD's, they ALWAYS made the MUSIC the most important thing. Not making money. Not looking good. Not selling units. MAKING GREAT MUSIC. The RIAA has replaced that with GREED.

In reading the Betamax case further, I have discovered this bit of information:

"Of course, the fact that other copyright holders may welcome the practice of time-shifting does not mean that respondents should be deemed to have granted a license to copy their programs. Third-party conduct would be wholly irrelevant in an action for direct infringement of respondents' copyrights. But in an action for contributory infringement against the seller of copying equipment, the copyright holder may not prevail unless the relief that he seeks affects only his programs, or unless he speaks for virtually all copyright holders with an interest in the outcome. "

Unless it can be proved that P2P networks can keep RIAA music off them, or that MGM speaks for ALL copyright holders (it's pretty obvious that they don't), MGM shouldn't be allowed to win. The more I read the Betamax case, the more likely it is that MGM can't win.

Of course, this DOESN'T stop the RIAA from suing the actual file sharers using P2P.

"George - I am sorry that nobody is interested in your homages to Dennis DeYoung. That is not my fault!"

All right, this is the third or fourth time you've made that stupid-ass remark. Clean out your ears. I use Keith Emerson patches, you stupid fuck.

And the one time I did work with Styx, they learned from me, not the other way around.

Sorry folks, I really try not to argue with the anonymous coward, but she is such an ignorant one that once in a while, I see the stuff before I get my morning Prozac.

"The Supreme Court expressed concerns Tuesday over allowing entertainment companies to sue makers of software that allows Internet users to illegally download music and movies, questioning whether the threat of such legal action might stifle Web innovation."

What difference does it make whether Web innovation is stifled as far as deciding the case goes? It is either illegal according to current law, or it isn't. Concerns over ancillary issues shouldn't be relevant.

Heart's "weight problem"? C'mon. The industry promoted that Wilson-Phillips crap girl band, and one of them was gi-normous. (Was. Now she had her stomach bypassed.)

I have fond memories of Heart. I have a couple of their LPs down in the vinyl dungeon here. I know we played a couple of their songs in the band I was in at the time. Dog and Butterfly and one other. We tried to play them anyway.

I'm glad Heart escaped the plantation. Nancy does some fine work for films, too -- especially Almost Famous for her hubby C. Crowe.

"What difference does it make whether Web innovation is stifled as far as deciding the case goes? It is either illegal according to current law, or it isn't. Concerns over ancillary issues shouldn't be relevant."

But when it comes to Copyright law, these issues are relevant. Reveiw the Betamax case here, and maybe you'll understand why these ancillary issues ARE relevant.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

autodidact - I agree wholeheartedly. I thought the whole idea that the reason Heart wasn't making more money or getting additional promotion due to Anne's "weight problem" completely ridiculous. Anne Wilson has one of the greatest female singing voices EVER.

I used to love the way Nance played guitar. She used to jam on the acoustic when they had six in the band. She was also just as exciting when she went to primarily playing the electric as well.

I too, have many fond memories of Heart, own all their music and am very happy they have sided with P2P. Those that do, show what their real love is, music, not money (like Henley and Crow).

Just an FYI. Heart came together again as a band a few years back and played at The Orange County Fair for a FREE SHOW!! The small arena was packed and over capacity!! People were even packed in all around the gates and were backed up well into the fair grounds trying to get a view of the band and hear the music.

It's funny, but as hard as I listen, Ann Wilson's "weight problem" just isn't audible on the records.

Aretha Franklin wasn't exactly anorexic either, as I recall. But we only had radio and vinyl then. Maybe you need digital to hear fat.

George, you get drier and wittier all the time... Are you looking to take over Andy Rooney's spot on 60 minutes? He definitely needs to go...

GZ on 60 Minutes? I smell ratings here folks...

lmaoa at George. Damn he's funnier than Leno or Letterman.

Thank you. I'll be here all week...