Here's the url hypertext linking trick:

[url= http://link]Headline[ /url]

1. remove the two spaces

2. trade "http://link" with the actual link

3. replace "Headline" with the headline or your own text

4. smile! (It ain't all bad. The world isn't comming to an end just yet.)

Fogcity's sumission:

"The decision is in and it not a good one. Not only does it go against he file sharing company but it sets up the way for all tech companys to be litigated over for copyright infringment."

LINK

Hollywood fatcats win

Above link submission is from CNN.com

Folks, go ahead and link as many versions of the MGM v Grokster decision as you find. We will start a collection.

Apple might get hit if iPod growth slows -Barron's --Reuters

Apple Computer Inc.'s (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) soaring shares might come under pressure if wireless phone companies' push to turn most cellphones into music players slow the sales growth of Apple's hugely popular iPod digital music players, Barron's newspaper said.

Supreme Court Rules Against P2P Companies!
June 27, 2005
Thomas Mennecke


The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, disagreed with two lower court rulings. Today’s opinion agrees with the MPAA and RIAA contention that P2P developers are responsible for the infringing activities of its users. The decision is a serious setback for commercial file-sharing companies, who were hoping a favorable Supreme Court decision would give the necessary leverage to negotiate a distribution agreement with the RIAA and MPAA.

With today's ruling reaffirming the rights of the RIAA and MPAA, these two organizations are now more secure then ever before in their distribution methods. This also leaves StreamCast and Grokster wide open for additional copyright infringement lawsuits.

StreamCast and Grokster, the two defendants named in the MGM lawsuit, have been fighting the movie and music industry for nearly 3 years.

At issue is whether StreamCast and Grokster, two distributors of P2P software, are guilty of contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement.

In order to be liable for contributory copyright infringement, three criteria have to be met: (1) direct infringement by a primary infringer, (2) knowledge of the infringement, and (3) material contribution to the infringement.

Similarly, in order to be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement, a complainant must show that a violator met the following three criteria: (1) direct infringement by a primary party, (2) a direct financial benefit to the defendant, and (3) the right and ability to supervise the infringers.

The situation began in October of 2001 when the RIAA and MPAA filed suit against Grokster and StreamCast (then MusicCity.) Both organizations had been successful in shutting down centralized networks such as Napaster and Scour. However, this round of lawsuits would prove more challenging as the fundamental difference in network architecture would prove to be the turning point for StreamCast and Grokster.

Unlike Napster or Scour, which used centralized indexing servers to catalog files on their networks, StreamCast and Grokster are considered “decentralized.” Decentralized networks do not have direct control of their network’s indexing responsibilities. Instead, this responsibility is distributed throughout the clients residing on the network.

After churning slowly through the courts, in April of 2003, Justice Steven Wilcox ruled in favor of StreamCast and Grokster. His ruling, based on the 1983 Sony vs. Universal decision (AKA the BetaMax case), stated that SreamCast and Grokster were not responsible for the content of their networks.

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson wrote in his opinion, released Friday. "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."

The MPAA and RIAA immediately appealed to the United States Federal Court of Appeals in California. Arguments were heard in February of 2004, in which the defense made a brilliant argument against the copyright industry. To no one's surprise, the court ruled in April 2004 that StreamCast and Grokster were not guilty of copyright infringement.

"This appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributory or vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users," Justice Sidney R. Thomas wrote. "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."

Today's decision virtually eliminates all momentum both StreamCast and Grokster had been gathering. From the SCOTUS blog:

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the Internet."

"In a decision announced by Justice David H. Souter, the Court said: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties" -- that is, computer users using free downloading software."

"A sweeping victory for music recording companies and movie studios, the ruling set the stage for a major legal assault on rampant file-sharing of copyrighted works by attacking the software designers -- a much more promising legal avenue than suing infringing users directly."

The unanimous decision means the case will be sent back to the lower courts, where StreamCast and Grokster can be sued for copyright infringement.

With a solid victory in place for the MPAA and RIAA, the future of commercial P2P enterprise, at least in the United States, is in serious question. With StreamCast and Grokster both liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, the online community awaits the next round of lawsuits from the copyright industry juggernaut - a round of lawsuits that may annihilate StreamCast and Grokster.

06.26.2005

--Hilary Rosen writes at the Huffington Post:

The Supreme Wisdom of Not Relying on the Court
The entertainment industry is anticipating -- as early as tomorrow -- a decision in the “MGM v Grokster” case. This is a case about whether or not those businesses creating and promoting P2P software for file-sharing are liable for the infringements of copyright made by the users on their networks.

This is a big case with lots of money poured into it from all sides. It is said that the Supreme Court’s decision will be one of the most important copyright cases ever on the books. I think it has all the makings of being famous for another reason. Because while the victory of whoever wins maybe important psychologically, it just won’t really matter in the marketplace.

I was Chairman and CEO of the RIAA when we developed the case almost five years ago. Suffice to say it was a frustrating time. Napster had been shut down rather than be licensed by the record companies and here were a whole group of new services that specifically avoided the legal frailties that Napster demonstrated in court. I thought that there was a need for a legal ruling at the time, but I also expected so much progress in the marketplace.

So why won’t this case matter now in the marketplace? Because by now SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION copies of this software that the entertainment industry would like to vanquish have been downloaded to individual computers around the world. They go by names like Grokser, Morpheus, Limewire, eDonkey, Bit Torrent, Kazaa, etc.) And each time, there is a successful enforcement or a new way to catch the developers with copyright liability, they reinvent themselves and generate another two or three year court proceeding. And now, a majority of them are hosted outside the United States. There is no court ruling whose enforcement can keep up with this. Sure, it might affect some venture capitalist deciding where to put money for a product. But none of these services since Napster have required venture money. They grow organically, because they are serving a still unserved desire. Do people like free content, sure, but they also like content. All the stuff - when they want it - to feel like free even if it might not be free.

What about the consumer you say? Oh yeah, us. Well, what the consumer wants has been ignored far too often by both of these sides. The technology industry makes money from hardware and software innovation. They have seen that with enough “innovation” their consumers can get all the content they want for free without it really being the tech industry’s problem to worry about the investment required to make that content. And those that do try to find common ground and acknowledge that there can be good guys and bad guys in their business as well, get so quickly attacked by their own that they withdraw. And the entertainment industry is still far too often spending time comparing the profit margins and risk of new ideas to an earlier time when the world was less digital.

So here is the crux of the problem. These services have traffic at a rate 40 to 50 times the traffic of legitimate sites. Yet, the amount of time and money wasted on besting the game by the entertainment and techonolgy industries is huge. This volume needs to be embraced and managed becasue it cannot be vanquished. And a tone must be set that allows future innovation to stimulate negotiation and not just confrontation.

Sure iTunes is great but it doesn’t have enough songs at its music store. And when you find songs you want at other stores like Yahoo, Rhapsody, Napster and AOL, you can’t put them in your iPod without denigrating the sound quality and working around the system set up to prevent you from doing just such a thing. And none of these services have all of the live recordings and bootleg tracks that I have said, since the days of Napster, is one of the most appealing aspects of P2P services.

And don’t get me started on the movie business. I have met countless times, at their request, with the studio CEO’s to discuss ways to avoid the mistakes the music industry made. The studios have the potential to learn from past problems. Unlike the record industry which had relied almost solely on physical sales, the studios have been more sophisticated businesses that relied on multiple revenue streams for a long time. But, illegal movie downloading is growing so rapidly, and consumer alternatives are nowhere near on the front burner as they should be. The central premise that tech will "wait until we are ready with our business models" is not going to work for the movie and television indsutries either.

So what the consumer is left with now are a few legitimate services that offer some great content and lots more illegal P2P choices that offer ALL the content plus a healthy dose of spyware, bad files and unwanted risk.

These are not legal decisions or trade association PR responsibilities on either side. They are fundamentally business issues that must be addressed in the marketplace.

The entertainment industry has no choice right now but to speed up its licensing activity and risk-taking and the tech industry should start caring that they are not helping their customers when the easiest way to get entertainment content is to also accept spyware, viruses, and bad files in the process. Sure there are some promising things happening, but they are not being embraced nearly fast enough.

All the wisdom of the Supreme Court will not change that bottom line.

this sucks
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=838

Other SCOTUS rulings today:

_Issued two 5-4 rulings that upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but only in some circumstances.

_Ruled unanimously that Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally.

_Decided 6-3 that cable companies may keep rival Internet providers from using their lines.

_Ruled 5-4 that an appeals court improperly gave a Tennessee death row inmate a second chance.

_Rejected appeals from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

_Ruled 7-2 that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders.

_Agreed to clarify when evidence collected during improper police searches can be used against a criminal suspect.

_Said it would consider whether federal employees can sue in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.

You know of course that the USA is a laughing stock when it comes to law. Every other country paradoes America's stance on 'sueing' at the drop of a hat. Endless comedy skethces have been made about how American's love to sue each other.

Well this is just another nail in the coffin. Let America sue itself into non-existence!

The only thing I can say for it is that it will get rid of some crappy filesharing networks that profit from ads/spam/spyware etc. Good riddance to garbage I say.

Free filesharing networks will continue regardless. But I can't wait for the industry to sue the first person who created/creates a free filesharing network (Brad Cohen you'd better pull out of that commercial venture right now).

All I can say is that you'd better have a HUGE disclaimer on everything that is capable of infringement from now on. And even that is not enough to protect you from being sued.

I just love the movie industry's spin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050627/ennew_afp/usinternetjustice_050627181024;_ylt=AhSKlcfYybT.VdnfTbTzd85HkPwA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Yeah you gotta love the way they completely tell it in a way that is a complete lie and nothing like the actual judgement says.

This is how important to the rest of the world this decision is.

In the UK BBC news reported on the Supreme Courts ruling regarding display of the 10 commandments. A fairly large chunks of the news too.

Not a single mention of the filesharing decision anywhere on the TV.

I've seen the report on FOX news, but it was pretty brief.

So, now the VCR is illegal. Sony can now sue Sony for inducing me to infringe copyrighted by recording copyrighted material on a Sony VCR.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"

Nope, I'm not overstating it.

The Justices who have unanimously decided this case have no idea what the ramifications of this decision are.. They really have made a huge mistake.

In their minds it must be just as simple as.."Grokster BAD!" They must be some simple in their thinking to believe that the good that will come of this will be that the good of this is to simply stop the flow of copyrighted material over the net.

They are so brick and mortar and obvisiouly don't have the capacity to think in terms of the new media and distribution methods.

They have made the worst decision they could have possibly made...and it will come back and bite them all on the ass.

This will effect more good things than bad.

"The Justices who have unanimously decided this case have no idea what the ramifications of this decision are"

Hey stupid - did you read the case? I didn't think so. Now shut the hell up.

I've been reading dumbass posts from doomsayers too busy playing Doom to read the case, so I'm getting a little annoyed. : )

Hello! Is anyone using their brains today? The Supreme Court threw out the requests for a summary judgement from both sides because the RIAA told pirate stories and the Grokster attorney went for the "genie is out of the bottle" cliché.

Neither side deserved to win. Neither side did.

They sent it back to a lower court to decide individual cases based on evidence.

Then they told everyone to erase the RIAA or risk being added to the list of people being sued.

I don't have a problem with that.

"They sent it back to a lower court to decide individual cases based on evidence."

Heh, That don't sound all THAT good for the **AA's .

The filesharing companies are just in the way anyhow.

"So, now the VCR is illegal. Sony can now sue Sony for inducing me to infringe copyrighted by recording copyrighted material on a Sony VCR."

I believe to record on your VCR is protected by the sony betamax case. Remember that one?

"They have made the worst decision they could have possibly made...and it will come back and bite them all on the ass."

This isn't anywhere close to the wost decision they could have made.

Here's the view of a litigating copyright attorney:

The Court Punts

I don't know about others, but I view the Court as having punted: they decided mainly an issue that wasn't in front of them (inducement) and didn't decide the one that was, the effect of Sony in the Internet era. I think this happened because neither the Ginsburg camp nor the Breyer camp could get two others to join. There were three for the picking, Souter, Scalia and Thomas. The two concurring camps have diametrically opposed views of the case, totalling six Justices. What does this do to the influence that the "unanimous" Souter opinion has? I think it greatly undermines it, resulting, as predicted in a muddied, murky future.

The Souter opinion does have a helpful slap down of the Ninth Circuit's bizarre "specific knowledge" requirement, and I think it is a good policy issue about the relationship of strong inducement evidence coupled with a staple article of commerce defense. But, I ask would the Betamax itself have met with Souter's approval? Recall Sony advertised that people could use it to copy their favorite movies, and we're talking here about librarying, not just time-shifting.

I need as most do, more time to sort through this, but my first read through is negative. We have two very different visions, Ginsburg's camp, which focuse more on what the hard evidence is now, and Breyer's, which focuses on the promise of technology, with three votes uncommitted to either camp. Regardless of whose side you favor, that kind of split is not helpful.

You can download the 55 page decison from http://www.boycott-mpaa.com

We have it downloadable from boycott-mpaa.com as a PDF file.

[exerpt from an AP newsline]
"The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the (lower court) case to go to trial."

The judges saying there was enough evidence of unlawful intent, sounds pretty ominous to me.

"This very breadth of the software’s use may well draw the public directly into the debate over copyright policy,"

That would be good. I wish I was as optimistic as Justice Souter

The other good things are:

1. Leaving anybody the ability to pickup the gnutella source and form a new company to distribute it as free-speech only (not for infringing copyright) ware.

2. Documenting that Grokster and StreamCast were slime balls, and it is probably karma slap them silly.

3. Stressing that"downloading" causes copyright infringements, not "sharing". "...given the number of infringing
downloads..." (Search for the share and download and see.)

4. Pointing out, "it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against..." *insert your convenient target here*.

what can you expect they favored a child murderer over the justice deserved over the mother who tried to protect them
the supreme court has betrayed the constitution.. and theyre old guys anyway.. they probably think file sharing is sharing a nail file...
fucking old farts

what are they gonna dfo anyway jail 3 billoin out of the 5 billion people on earth who fileshare at least 3 times a week

I agree with George, "Neither side deserved to win. Neither side did."

I don't fault Fred and the boys for making a losing argument, only for making an uninteresting one.

I don't mind them making me read 55 pages. I mine them not making the 55 pages worth reading.

CaptainMorgan!! Long time since we heard from you! Welcome back!

Heres an article from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm

Thanks Mom!

Deep links has some very interesting analysis of inducement standards indicated.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003754.php

"The question of damages also is unclear. Statutory damages, which can be obtained regardless of actual harm in cases of copyright infringement, are not available in the patent context.

The DiMA et. al. brief similarly suggested that injunctions only apply to "the conduct that gave rise to liabilty, and should not prevent distribution of the technology itself." Furthermore, they argued that "Damages should be awarded only for harm directly caused by a company’s active encouragement." "

"
[exerpt from an AP newsline]
"The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the (lower court) case to go to trial."

The judges saying there was enough evidence of unlawful intent, sounds pretty ominous to me."

nope.. see mr. miller's analysis of this so called "damning evidence of unlawful intent" at www.corante.com/importance

From the Justices' decision:

"If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was."

"Inferring a patently illegal objective." Hmm.
Plausible example: If Grokster can be shown as purposefully profiting from high volumes of file sharing despite on-going knowledge that the bulk of the sharing involved illegal copying, that might be sufficient evidence of unlawful intent.

I read Mr. Miller's article. Good information and good insight.
However, there may yet be enough evidence to demonstrate unlawful intent or inducement.
Your saying "nope" to my prospect of the situtation as being ominous . . . could be premature.
P.S. Are you an attorney?

I could use better proofreading skills.

"situtation" = situation

Also: "Damages should be awarded only for harm directly caused by a company's active encouragement."

Couldn't it be considered inducement for a company to actively encourage clients to share files (when the bulk of the files shared are well-known to be copyrighted)?

I wonder if I could sue the movie and music industry for any crime that is commited by a member of my family after watching a movie or listening to a song about shooting and stealing or rape or any other crimes listed by thier lyrics.

The biggest issue I see here is the ignorance of our Society and especially the elderly when it comes to technology. Lets forget about sharing and all that hoop la. What about Guns, can I sue the gun manufacturer now since they make a product that I can kill someone with, why can't I sue them, I think that in the next year this decision will be overturned because it opens up way to many other avenues for people to sue with. When a large company gets hit with a lawsuit because of this issue then we will see things change real quick. Remember without an Operating system sharing files isn't even possible, why is this included in the OS then. Just my opinion but give it a year, they are doomed, like the Dinosaurs, you cannot avoid the asteroid forever, eventually they will all perish.

gdzieman, on your website you stated that "Everything is still going by the original 1920s script. It has not wavered in the slightest."

Could you elaborate on this for me? If you have it on your website and can link me directly to the script you are referring to, that would help alot. I am intrigued on how history continues to repeat itself. I know I read your entire article on this before, but I would love to re-read it again.

Now this pissed me off. Check out this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=495&e=4&u=/ap/file_sharing_artists

Notice the headline "Musicians Welcome File-Swaping Ruling".

Half the story is about how major label musicians love it, the other half is about how it hurts independent musicians. I guess according to the headline, us independent bands dont count as musicians anymore. Its a bullshit headline, considering the number of independent musicians vastly outnumber those who are with major labels.

fatherbrennan,

remember? We "indie" musicians are considered "illegit"

...(and THUS, this MGM v Grokster thingy does NOT apply!)

Folks, I want to tell you about a thing called "the silver lining"

Hey Mr. Poop..watch it callin me a dumbass.

Good point about "the silver lining". If a trial has to proceed, won't the RIAA record labels have to PROVE they are the copyright owners?

and oh by the way mr. shit...poop roop..whatever the hell you are. I know exactly what the decision of the case means and how it actually could work in our favor and not for the corporate assrapers you enjoy the company of and enjoy defending.

What they have proven is that if you have the cash..you can "buy" rules..and the justices are outdated scumbags with no backbone.

You come back and call me a dumbass in a few months after this thing takes effect and they start twisting the shit out of it for their own agenda.

Oh yeah, I forgot were illegit. Sometimes my ego gets a little out of control and I start to think of myself as a musician. Good thing I have people like Sheryl Crowe and Jay Z to put me in my place. Them being the "Beethoven-esque" master musicians they are.

what is important here to me is:

A. the lack of definition for the breadth of "inducement" (I see a lot of abuse and threatmongering over the horizon if it's not kept as scantly slim as possible... it could be just as damaging as the induce act if an activist judge gets his hands on it)

B. the lack of definition for the damages for inducement (it's FINE if those guidelines are taken from patent law, but NOT if past marketing unrelated to the product can now somehow be used to kill off products or companies.)

C. the lack of objectivity in the court ruling when they were not supposed to be judging themselves weather there is evidence of "inducement". (they hand it back to the lower courts, but do a damned heavy job encouraging a guilty finding before the trial even starts... innocent until proven guilty? HAH!)

It's my position that had such a standard been proposed sony would not have passed muster with it's betamax, which was advertized to "copy your favorite movies and tv shows".

I need also remind one and all that the Supremes, under different Judges, once upon a time ruled segregated "separate but equal" facilities constitutional, and gave the green light to eugenic sterilization of the so-called "feeble-minded." So this set of rulings is in THAT vein.

Lots of us have to remember that we still outweigh the RIAA lackeys/fatcats/mutesicians in numbers. When one filesharing program goes down, another one will rise up and take its place.

"The Justices who have unanimously decided this case have no idea what the ramifications of this decision are.. They really have made a huge mistake."

What are the ramifications that the Court did not grasp?

"You come back and call me a dumbass in a few months after this thing takes effect and they start twisting the shit out of it for their own agenda."

What is going to happen when this thing takes effect?

W-B, you're comparing apples and coconuts because they both come from trees.

CherishTruth:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

Everyone stops there for some reason and decides the sky is falling on their head. From the BBC:

But the court also said a technology company could not be sued if it merely learns its customers are using its products for illegal purposes.

That balancing test, the court said, was necessary so that it "does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise".

--------

The case went back to the lower courts to hear the evidence that the RIAA/MPAA had petitioned to be accepted as fact. They did NOT win. They now have to go prove that someone intentionally did all of this inducement of infringement.

The RIAA jumped up and said they won and everyone believes them because the parrot media repeated it. But the truth is their request for a summary judgement was rejected, the BetaMax principle has been upheld and the RIAA has to go back to where they started this two years ago, do it all over again and prove that Grokster's initial intent and purpose was copyright infringement, instead of pretending that piracy threatens the industry, supports terrorism and pornography and is the last remaining obstacle to world peace and the end of hunger.

It's none of that. It's people making money enabling the sharing RIAA music. The RIAA and their artists on parade seem to think that erasing them from the p2p net is a good idea.

Well so do I. By a 9-0 vote, so does the Supreme Court. They're leveling the playing field by telling everyone to get the RIAA's shit off of it, which is what I've been telling you over and over and over for three years.

The RIAA and the major artists seem to think that p2p is a danger to their income. I think it's the only thing keeping them alive.

Pull the plug. Erase the RIAA. It's Supreme Court approved and recommended.

Got a problem with that?

"Hey stupid - did you read the case? I didn't think so. Now shut the hell up.

I've been reading dumbass posts from doomsayers too busy playing Doom to read the case, so I'm getting a little annoyed. : )"


Mroop.. just a clue to the effectivness of of how to respond to misinformation here. You and George are on the same page. you are both intellegent and you both have read the decision. George on one hand explains the decision in terms that those of us who are not as intellegent as you are can understand.
You on the other hand revert to calling names and insults. Georges response makes sense. is informative and helps us understand what this decision means. your response, on the other hand, makes one want to race for the nearest recepticle to upchuck our lunch.
If you want more informed people, perhaps you should take a page from the book of those who know how to inform.

George's post is effective. your's isn't. If you don't want to be effective then you have lowered yourself to the depths of those you criticize and are no better.

I've waited this long to post a reply because I wanted to see the story stop spinning or at least slow down.

As usual, George sees through the clutter to see what the decision actually says....not what everyone and their dog "interprets" it to be saying. Why do people start all sorts of speculation on what the Supreme Court meant by it's decisions? They tell you in plain language, there is no need to start guessing what they meant by this phrase or that phrase.

Supreme Court: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

gdZiemann: "Everyone stops there for some reason and decides the sky is falling on their head."

BBC: "But the court also said a technology company could not be sued if it merely learns its customers are using its products for illegal purposes. . ."

Yes, that "if" scenario could be their hope for exoneration, but a hope is just that — a hope.

Evidence might be demonstrated that most file sharing companies have been more involved than merely incidentally learning their customers were using the P2P technology primarily for infringement purposes, irrespective of what the advertising companies who sponsor the ads that make their services profitable knew. (Obviously, it's the technology company that distributes the means to promote sharing that would be the one at culpable risk, not the advertisers.)
Basically, the file sharing companies likely were aware:
1) Large numbers of users utilize their services.
2) The more users, the greater the profit margin, and the more inclined the company is to do business as usual.
3) The more users, the more infringement that occurs.
4) Failing to caution existing and prospective new clients to follow applicable laws (when it is known that a large segment of users are already engaging in infringement) could be construed as bordering on inducement.

Oh, I realize the situation is not cut and dry, and I don't think the sky has fallen. I have, however, taken the position that there is indeed a valid concern that with yesterday's ruling, file sharing companies could very well not prevail as defendants in litigation.
That's where I'm coming from.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Allow me to also add that some companies doing business in offering file sharing services typically encourage new clients to share media files without any precautionary statement or advice concerning potential infringement of existing copyrights.
One of my sons recently tried out two different companies, and I even witnessed the complete activation procedure for one of them...before I had him cancel out.

"Evidence might be demonstrated..."

So far the RIAA has won exactly two cases. Napster and one civil case against a swap meet owner.

Evidence might be demonstrated in any of the 12,000 lawsuits against consumers. But after two full years, it hasn't happened once yet.

It hasn't happened, but not necessarily because there wasn't a solid case. As you know, discretion is often the better part of valor.
Settling out rather than contesting it was probably the wiser course of action to take, and likely most of those subpoened were keenly aware of their not having a good defense.

It may prevail that the file sharing companies were remiss in not warning their clients. After all the hoopla over the statistics of how most P2P involved the illegal trading of copyrighted media files, they may be found neglectful in not making effort to then give precautionary advice in the aftermath of that knowledge.
Most didn't do that; it may come back to haunt them.
Perhaps their attitude was akin to "The genie is out of the bottle; can't put it back!"
Well, that posture didn't work at the Supreme Court.
And it may not fly at a lower court now either.

Obviously, a lot hinges on just what the RIAA and the MPAA decide to do.

Hi, I'm new, but this case really irks me, and no i did not read the entire 55 pages of the case. I have bought hundreds of CDs for mainly 1 or 2 songs, but the point is that I've bought them.

File sharing has allowed me to get songs that are rare or just not popular amongst the main stream media. I've gotten to listen to a lot of indie artists before they ever got big.

All it says to me, really is that the fat cat pricks of the major companies get their way because they have the money and the power and everything else. I mean come on if Michael Jackson can be found innocent, you just knew that the supreme court would rule in favor of the big wigs....money makes the world go round.

The funny thing is, just like what happened after napster could happen now. hundreds of file sharing programs popped up after the napster case. I don't think its going away any time soon either.

I have a stupid question, for i am not as well versed in this as a lot of you, but what exactly does copyright infringment mean?

I just don't get the entire thing, now thinking about it, you can record a movie by using your DVR(and possibly burn it to DVD) or VCR....and from what i think Copy right infringment is(from what I've gathered from the articles I've read about this ruling), that too would be illegal, right?

sounds like you've pretty much got the idea. welcome aboard.

Welcome, AngylGrrl81 (I'm gonna shorten your name to Angy for sure!). The purpose of the ruling concerning VCR taping was supposedly to allow "time shifting," but see, the RIAA doesn't want you to "time shift" or "share" or anything else with their "intellectual property," and we here at Boycott (mostly) support their position. Let them listen to their stuff in an echo chamber--maybe it'll sound better. We sort of figure it this way: if they don't want you to share their material--fine. There are lots of independent musicians who would love you to share their music. So we do. Check out DMusic--great music from people who love music, not RIAA money.

"So far the RIAA has won exactly two cases. Napster and one civil case against a swap meet owner."

George, do you have any cites on this? That was my figuring too, but I didn't have any hard docs.

I've argued that the RIAA will never bring a single contested p2p sharing case to trial. They have everything to lose and nothing to win.

It is better for them to settle the compitulators, and postpone the contested ones. Then then can say we have settled 90% and the rest are in negotiation. That way it is *perceived* that they are winning, while actually they are extorting.

Imagine if they brought a contested case to trial... There are only two possibilities, the lose or they win.

If they lose, game over. Everyone else will contest. There would be lots of screaming and hand waving for them to give all of the previously extorted money back.

If they win, they can't settle for $3,000. That's an award of like $3 per song. That negates the damages of $100,000 per song that they scare people with. Given one of their "average" targets sharing 1,000 songs, they would have to sue for millions to give their existing and future threats teeth.

Now imagine if they WON an award for millions against say a highschool student. Game over again! The congress is not going to let that stand. Not a chance. Too many constituants have children. The RIAA 's often touted leverage of $100,000 per song would dissapear even before the family managed to file bankruptcy.

No million dollars, and no more $100,000 leverage. Fighting a contested lawsuit is a lose / lose proposition for the RIAA. It will never happen.

Not to mention that they would have to provide proof of copyright and that is the mysterious, murky part. George has a great take on this...

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16628

It seems they really don't want a public trial case...maybe that's the real reason they aim for easy marks. The problem is it's hard to portray little girls, grandfathers and grandmothers as cutthroat thieves.

Supreme Court:

The Court said a technology company could not be sued if it merely learns its customers are using its products for illegal purposes.
But it also said:
"One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement ... and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it."

CherishTruth:

Evidence might be demonstrated that most file sharing companies have been more involved than merely incidentally learning their customers were using the P2P technology primarily for infringement purposes . . .
Failing to caution existing and prospective new clients to follow applicable laws (when it is known that a large segment of users are already engaging in infringement) could now be construed as vicarious inducement . . .

It may prevail that the file sharing companies were remiss in not warning their clients. It appears that they were content to do business as usual, profiting in the process. After all the hoopla over the statistics of how most P2P involved the illegal trading of copyrighted media files, they may be found neglectful in not making effort to then give precautionary advice in the aftermath of that knowledge.
Grokster and most others didn't do that; it could come back to haunt them.

Perhaps their attitude was akin to "Too late; the genie is out of the bottle."
Well, that posture didn't work for them at the Supreme Court. And it may not fly at a lower court now either.

Obviously, a lot hinges on just what the RIAA and the MPAA decide to do.

gdZiemann:

"So far the RIAA has won exactly two cases. Napster and one civil case against a swap meet owner.
Evidence might be demonstrated in any of the 12,000 lawsuits against consumers. But after two full years, it hasn't happened once yet."

CherishTruth:

George, I'm referring to evidence for litigation against Grokster and possibly other file sharing companies, not against individual users...in light of this Supreme Court's majority opinion, part of which gives significant impetus for the cartel's view. (The Court called it vicarious infringement, and it's a shoe that fits.)
There's thousand times more potential money to be made in winning those kind of lawsuits.
I'd be very surprised if they don't take the ball and run with it against file sharing companies.

"money makes the world go round."

Welcome to the real world AngylGrrl81!! That's one of the things this whole mess is about. MONEY!! GREED!!

But you can add one other word to describe what the RIAA and the MPAA are doing. CONTROL!!! (Great song by Puddle of Mud. Too bad I won't be listening or buying anything from an RIAA stooge ever again!). They want to CONTROL the music market. Napster and every other file sharing company wanted to lease RIAA music and offered them MILLIONS to do so. The RIAA companies turned them down. Why? CONTROL.

The RIAA labels want to CONTROL the market, and exploit the monopolistic control they exercise over the music industry. Yet, our lame-ass government would rather pass legislation giving these greedy bastards more power, than to sue them for their monopolistic actions and break them up. Breaking up these RIAA labels is the only way to generate true competition, and creativity that currently is lacking in the music industry.

Since our Justice Department would rather worry about what Microsoft is doing and whether or not 12-year-old girls and dead grandmas are sharing music, I don't see the RIAA labels getting broken up anytime soon.

Not to mention that they would have to provide proof of copyright and that is the mysterious, murky part. George has a great take on this...

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16628

It seems they really don't want a public trial case...maybe that's the real reason they aim for easy marks.
------------------------

Funny our resident know-it-all lawyer Mr. Out of Print never commented on that article. The silence is deafening.

George, if you are right, how many top musicians are hip to what you wrote about? Maybe at least their agents would be interested in this knowledge. You think?

George's article was great, but I would still love the citations on RIAA lawsuits if anyone has any.

So far I'm scoring with George. Napster, plus some guys SELLING a box of bootleg CD. Hardly equivelent to sharing on p2p.

So I'm tallying ZERO legal wins against against sharers. One legal win against a very publically unsympathetic company (with two even more unsympathetic companies to follow)

"What are the ramifications that the Court did not grasp?"

mroop:

they preserved the word of betamax, sure, but they missed the point and undermined the spirit of the ruling.

The point was that betamax offered a clear and objective test by which new and existing technologies could be evaluated to avoid multimillion dollar litigation.

This is now removed.

If cohen had been sued under such a precedent back in 2002 we would have no bit torrent! he was developing that software on massive credit card debts.

CaptainMorgan, I was looking for something else, but this article might have the info you wanted about how many cases have actually gone to court. Quoting Rolling Stone....

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/17178

Another interesting story...I may have missed a few weeks ago, but I just found it:

Four UCD students may face RIAA lawsuits

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=9433

The interesting part is this:

"Freshman Kyle Flick said he has seen some of his friends go to jail because of file downloading and sharing."

Although I believe Kyle is blowing smoke, and Stephanie did not do her homework and confirm his information....

Proposal Made To Seize Souter's Property

I know we had the link to this information directly to the Freestar Media website. It has now reached BIG NEWS. I found this article at yahoo. I hope it comes to fruition, because maybe if the Supreme Justices got a PERSONAL taste of what their decisions do to the American people, they might think twice about what they decide.

Capt. Morgan -- Actually, the RIAA was the source for my information. Naturally, it is no longer present on their website.

The story they posted about winning the case against the swap meet guy said it was their first victory in a civil case. We know they won Napster.

They have not taken one single filesharing case to court. No jury has ever heard a file sharing case. No jury in the country would award the RIAA damages from a 12-year-old child.

I think the closest they came was some guy at Fox who installed a server for them and whose user ID was used to upload a ton of unauthorized content.

He got off. The winning argument was, "Must have been somebody else."

"George, I'm referring to evidence for litigation against Grokster and possibly other file sharing companies"

Well, what I'm referring to is the RIAA's inability to argue a case without running off the legal cliff shouting "pirates!". Every time they do that, it just pisses off the judges.

autodidact -- The week I wrote that article, William Morris Agency, Universal, Sony and several others came to read it. They know.

"Funny our resident know-it-all lawyer Mr. Out of Print never commented on that article. The silence is deafening."

Ha! I'm supposed to post on every freaking thread or my silence is deafening? Gimme a freaking break!

But here's my take and you can put your conspiracy theories to rest:

A finding in a lawsuit between a record company and a downloader or uploader is not dispositive of a relationship between the artist and the record company. So in the end, it doesn't really matter a whole bunch what a court in one of these lawsuits finds in their decision.

Despite George's claim that none of the filesharing cases has gone to court - we know that is not true. Cases have gone to court, but none has made it to a jury because the courts have found that the defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury. Defense lawyers have tried and defense lawyers have lost. End of story.

Remember that every time the RIAA files a suit, they risk a case getting in front of a jury. It is not the RIAA's choice if a defendant tries to get in front of a jury. They have no say in the matter.

"Funny our resident know-it-all lawyer"

And I have never said I know it all. I have repeatedly said that I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination.

mroop, can you link me anything on any of those cases? I know of two uncontested cases in Conn. and I think it there were two more someplace else, also uncontested.

The only rulings I've seen have been, did not appear default judgements.

The two I am aware of are Cecilia Gonzalez - google that with RIAA and you'll find it. The other one is Michelle Scimeca with attorney Bart Lombardo. I'm pretty sure that Carla told us they lost in court.

"Cases have gone to court, but none has made it to a jury because the courts have found that the defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury. "

NAME ONE!

So far the two cases you've listed have nothing to do with the above statement. Where are the cases that the "defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury. "

Provide us the link.

AHRA, dude, AHRA! LOL

"NAME ONE!

So far the two cases you've listed have nothing to do with the above statement. Where are the cases that the "defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury."

What the hell are you talking about? I just named the cases! Can't you read? Losing on summary judgment means the "defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury." Get a grip.

You want more info then go to google.

I'm reading an article from the Baltimore Sun and found this quote to be really true for a lot of people I know who use file sharing:

"Through file-sharing, I get a sense of whether or not I want to buy a CD," he said. "Basically, that only hurts artists who are one-hit wonders, whose CDs aren't worth buying."

this also came from the Baltimore Sun article:

Stopping file-sharing will entail more than dismantling a few Internet sites, said Jennifer Kim, 21, a Hopkins senior.

"Basically," she said, "you'd have to cut down every connection people have to each other."

How true is that? To me its very true, and very real.

I mean that is what I did...And thanks captdunsel, ShadowMom and INeedALover for welcoming me.

INAL -> What you said really hit home with me about control....because to me with the big wigs suing us poor peons(sp) who download songs and such just really goes to show you how f**ked up our society and country really are. Not to offend any Pro Bush people, but that sounds just like our president and his group of friends...power, control and greed....power being the presidency and stacking the lower courts with supreme jackasses, control being the military invading third world countries for oil, and greed being the money they profit off of when they get said oil.

Yes, I download songs, but i have like almost a thousand songs that i have CDs for as well....I'm a geek and sometimes make music videos for tv shows and the mp3's that i download have better sound quality of the songs i rip from my own cds.

And another reason for CD sales dropping is that they are TOO EXSPENSIVE!!! If they lower the prices for cds because lord knows it only costs like 25 cents to make down in mexico, then i think sales would climb back up. Its not just the fact that there is file sharing programs...its greed.....they think, 'oh these morons will pay any price we put on the cds because they love the artists.'

thats my humble opinion...don't kill me, please?

"The only rulings I've seen have been, did not appear default judgements."

You mean they were default judgments. That is when you don't show up and boom you lose.

Summary judgment is when you answer the complaint and then the plaintiff moves to crush you immediately with a summary judgment motion. The RIAA is saying with the summary judgment motion "This guy has no defense and does not even deserve to be heard by a jury. Kick his ass out of court right now and tell us that we are the winners." In Gonzalez this is what happened. I am pretty sure that Carla told us that the same thing happened to Michelle Scimeca.

mroop -- One of those two you cited wanted a jury trial, I believe. Did they get one? Did they lose or decide to settle? Or file an appeal?

"Cases have gone to court, but none has made it to a jury because the courts have found that the defense does not have a viable legal defense that would get them in front of a jury. Defense lawyers have tried and defense lawyers have lost. End of story."

You're absolutely right, mroop. As a result, the RIAA hasn't had to prove much of anything.

I'm not a lawyer, so my line of distinction is different. There have also been cases where the RIAA didn't even bother taking it to a judge because it was painfully obvious that they were dead-ass wrong.

Dear departed Grandma Walton comes to mind as a prime example and is certainly not the only one -- Mac users sued for sharing on Kazaa.

They didn't even need a lawyer to prove their innocence.

I will not consider the RIAA to have proven its case until the following scenario takes place:

RIAA sues someone.

Defendant says, "Judge, they're wrong. I think they just picked my name out of the phone book or something. I am innocent and have not committed the offense with which I am charged." Defendant respectfully requests that the plaintiff be required to prove their case before a jury, absent-mindedly neglecting to mention the obvious exculpatory evidence until the course of a trial, and after allowing the RIAA to go through their whole song and dance, with IP addresses and ISP logs and their screenshots and whatever else they can dream up to show that without a doubt, it was the defendant's computer.

Then they have to prove the defendant was the one sitting at the computer at that moment in time, or at least still alive when the infraction occurred.

Even a guilty person could make the RIAA run through all of those hoops to convince a jury.

THAT would be proving their case -- winning against someone who simply says, "I am innocent." To me, anything less just doesn't count.

All the people who got caught filesharing and said, "I did it but..." had already pronounced themselves guilty. They were just looking for a legal excuse and haven't found a good one yet.

No matter how damning the evidence, even a murderer or a rapist gets a trial if they claim innocence. "I did it but..." sends your ass directly to the slammer.

Thank you mroop! I found the Gonzalez case mentioned on boycott and this news letter who reports:

"Gonzalez asserted that the “fair use”
defense applied to her situation because she: (1) was just “sampling”
the songs to determine if she wanted to purchase them; (2) already
owned many of the songs she downloaded; and (3) did not cause any
financial harm by downloading 30 songs. The United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois found each of these contentions
to be without merit.
...
As a result of this
infringement the district court held that she was not an innocent
infringer and awarded the record companies $22,500.00, which
amounts to $750 per song. One would think that such a ruling would
grab the attention of would-be music pirates. Oddly, however, there
seems to have been no news coverage of this ruling or press releases
issued on the part of the record companies. If deterrence is the goal
such silence seems to be quite counterproductive."

I stand corrected. That summary judgement tallies a legimate win for the RIAA.

Personally I think that defense sucked. I'd have gone with "AHRA, dude, AHRA!" over "I'z just grazing and it dain't hurt none"

-----

I found Michelle Scimeca listed at EFF. They show the answer, but they don't show the complaint or outcome.

The answer shows:
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
7. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the First Sale Doctrine.
8. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Audio Home Recording Act, 17 U.S.C. '1008.
9. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Doctrine of Fair Use.

They ALSO show that Ms. Scimeca counter sued under the RICO statutes. I'll score that one for *creative* thinking! It least it was worth the read!

I'll admit that if they didn't lose the RICO bit, they are probably well on their way. I'd love to see the outcome of the sharing suit though.

Thanks for the cites!

"THAT would be proving their case -- winning against someone who simply says, "I am innocent." To me, anything less just doesn't count."

Interesting. I think exactly the opposite. Losing against someone who is factually innocent (didn't download anything) doesn't mean anything in the legal sense as to creating new precedent about the legality of "sharing".

"All the people who got caught filesharing and said, "I did it but..." had already pronounced themselves guilty. They were just looking for a legal excuse and haven't found a good one yet."

A defendant winning in this scenario is the big deal, because then file sharing of copyrighted materials without consent is legal if you do what the defendant did. That to me is a big deal!

"Thanks for the cites!"

No prob. Your welcome.

"mroop -- One of those two you cited wanted a jury trial, I believe. Did they get one? Did they lose or decide to settle? Or file an appeal?"

I believe they both wanted a jury trial and both lost via summary judgment before they could get to a jury. Cecilia Gonzalez is going to file an appeal, so the case is still open.

"Personally I think that defense sucked. I'd have gone with "AHRA, dude, AHRA!" over "I'z just grazing and it dain't hurt none""

With all due respect, I think that is because you don't grasp the real meaning of AHRA. Gonzalez was represented by an IP attorney, meaning he specializes in this stuff. He is not unaware of AHRA. I have always maintained that AHRA has absolutely nothing to do with file sharing and is widely misunderstood by many on the internet.

I have to agree with you about the gamble of going for the, "I was just sampling the files for temporary use, please rule sampling fair-use." defense.

If you win that, it is the holy grail. It basically eviscerates the industry's arguement.

It wouldn't be unusual for a legal team with a long term strategy to expect to lose on summary judgement, in order to get a clear appeal, on the way up the chain.

However, I didn't find signs of that using google. The lawyer simply seemed to get fanned.

In court, the best lawyer wins. No sense blaming the umpire. If he hadn't a chance in hell of hitting a home run, he should have singled to right.

I don't misunderstand the AHRA at all. But you have to swing the bats you have. No sense using the bat that broke last season, even if it broke on a home run.

By the way, I expected Grokser to lose. I would have like to see them win, but it wasn't going to happen.

You don't win a case by saying, "Sure my clients are guilty as sin slimeballs, but you can't touch them because they are protected by legal philosophy."

" A defendant winning in this scenario is the big deal, because then file sharing of copyrighted materials without consent is legal if you do what the defendant did. That to me is a big deal!"

Once again, you're absolutely right, provided such a winning scenario a) exists and b) holds up in court. You're going to sacrifice a lot of clients looking for the right defense, if there even is one.

My scenario does exist. People have recieved subpoenas that have had perfectly logical explanations that proved whatever "evidence" the RIAA had against them was simply wrong. The Mac users getting accused of using Kazaa for instance. It just can't happen.

How about someone who used Kazaa, downloaded music, made sure they were not sharing but the RIAA got into their computer anyway? Have they even infringed, from a technical point of view, if they were not knowingly offering music to the net or were actively taking steps to prevent it?

More importantly, who would the jury side with? The RIAA or the 12-year-old girl with the sad puppy dog face who didn't know any better?

Without even looking for a legal loophole to squeeze through, such an outcome in a trial would cast doubt on every other subpoena, not to mention making the extortion and RICO charges look more convincing.

Playing the loophole game is what you do when the facts and common sense aren't in your favor.

When they are, go with a jury trial.

CherishTruth -- Way back at the beginning of this thread you said, "Perhaps their attitude was akin to 'The genie is out of the bottle; can't put it back!'"

That not only was their attitude, it was almost word for word Grokster's argument to the Supreme Court.

In speaking of all this discussion regarding those FACSIST FATCATS in the RIAA suing people and whether any of the cases have gone to court.

You can't forget this!!!! http://p2pnet.net/story/4052#comments


Those FASCISTS as of a few months ago are trying to obtain the police state warrentless searches back they had under the DMCA. They already lost another case with Charter and a few appeals, but they are trying again!! How many more cases are thye going to be able to try???? It's scary. When they lost the last appeal, I thought it was over and that was it. But now, they are trying again to get the privacy invading powers back!!

Does anyone know what are the odds they will prevail on this case??? Please tell me they are very low. Because if they win, they will have them back and things will be like HELL on earth again.


Forget just about the Grokster case here for a second. I mean, those FASCIST RIAA THUGS are trying to gain the police state like powers of warrentless searches of ISPs again!! If they win this time, who's to say we will ever be able to stop them with a different court case. It's friggin scary because those FASCISTS in the RIAA are probably trying to quietly overtunr this case to obtain the police state privacy invading powers back (warrentless) while the whole public is too focused on the Grokster case to pay attention.


WAKE UP EVERYONME and pay serious attention to this case and ensure the RIAA doens't get the police state warrentless privacy invading searches back!!!!

I went back and checked the transcript.

"the peer-to-peer genie is out of the bottle"

Godwin strikes.

I didn't do it!!! I swear!! But I do have a question here--if I understand it right, the Supremes are saying MGM et al. have to prove intent as well as infringement. Does that mean we can expect the damned "Induce" act to intrude on our sensitive psyches again? Do you think they will try to bring it back again just to sort of help the lower courts decide this?

mroop, sorry I was snarky. I guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed. Now it is late, and I'm not sure what my point was.

As best I can recall, the issue I wanted addressed had to do with performance copyrights, which I think is what Z-man was talking about in his article.

He wrote: "If the artists let the labels prove ownership and sue you, their catalog becomes work for hire. Each case in which the labels show ownership and have such claim accepted by the court erodes the potential of the artists to recover their work beginning in 2013, when a provision of the 1976 Copyright Act goes into effect."

I was wondering if you thought this reasoning had legal merit. Since you didn't comment, I thought silence equaled assent. But perhaps not.

If what George said is correct, then actually winning by proving their case in court -- proving ownership, they might really alienate all the artists upon whose blood they feed, if the artists ever grasped the precedent being set. .

"I have to agree with you about the gamble of going for the, "I was just sampling the files for temporary use, please rule sampling fair-use." defense."

I never said that. I'm not sure who you are agreeing with.

"I don't misunderstand the AHRA at all. But you have to swing the bats you have."

If you think AHRA is a bat then you don't understand AHRA.

"Once again, you're absolutely right, provided such a winning scenario a) exists and b) holds up in court. You're going to sacrifice a lot of clients looking for the right defense, if there even is one."

Ha ha. That's true. We're seeing those clients sacrificed right now!

"My scenario does exist. People have recieved subpoenas that have had perfectly logical explanations that proved whatever "evidence" the RIAA had against them was simply wrong. The Mac users getting accused of using Kazaa for instance. It just can't happen."

That's true. But that's why those cases will never come to court. The other ones are interesting because they would make precedent if the defendant won. I don't think a defendant is ever going to win, but it's interesting to watch them try.

"I was wondering if you thought this reasoning had legal merit. Since you didn't comment, I thought silence equaled assent. But perhaps not.

If what George said is correct, then actually winning by proving their case in court -- proving ownership, they might really alienate all the artists upon whose blood they feed, if the artists ever grasped the precedent being set."

I did answer that question above. I said:

"A finding in a lawsuit between a record company and a downloader or uploader is not dispositive of a relationship between the artist and the record company. So in the end, it doesn't really matter a whole bunch what a court in one of these lawsuits finds in their decision."

What I'm saying is just because a court in a case of a record company versus a downloader determines the type of relationship that exists between a record company and and artist recording the nature of the copyright does not mean it is some kind of legal precedent on that issue because that issue is not what the case is about.

I guess at some other time the artist could sue the record company on this issue and the artist will say: "That court in the downloader vs. record company case found that this is our relationship." But that does not mean it is binding on the court to agree with the previous court because that was not the primary issue in the previous case.

"A defendant winning in this scenario is the big deal, because then file sharing of copyrighted materials without consent is legal if you do what the defendant did. That to me is a big deal!"

I was agreeing with this. Perhaps you didn't specifically mean that related to Gonzalez, but I still agree.

Does anyone have any idea on the question I asked.

I mean, it's scary!! Please tell me that the odds are veyr low that they will get the police state like powers back!!!

To: Prideful...

"The RIAA appeal says the court’s misreading of the statute (in last month's split 8th Circuit ruling) produced a result that is irreconcilable with the DMCA's text, structure and purposes."

True dat, in strict accord with how the RIAA gleefully thrives on the DMCA as helping the music cartel screw their customer base.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling with regard to the concept of 'vicarious inducement', perhaps the RIAA's cause has been strengthened in pursuing
their appeal.

A new edition of "In The News" is up and running, but PLEASE continue the discussions we are having here in this thread for as long as you wish!

A hearty "welcome" to AngylGrrl81 (hope you stick around and become a regular) and also a "glad to see ya again" to CaptainMorgan!

The new (and old) faces are just one of the silver linings of the MGM v Grokster decision.

Don't call us old, you young pup. "Familiar, " okay. "Old," not okay.

Going from "old" to "familiar" requires too many letters to be changed...

hmm, let's see...

howabout

"old" to "odd"?

that way I only gotta switch just one letter.

GDZiemann you said: How about someone who used Kazaa, downloaded music, made sure they were not sharing but the RIAA got into their computer anyway? Have they even infringed, from a technical point of view, if they were not knowingly offering music to the net or were actively taking steps to prevent it?

So are you saying that people who've download music and took steps ensuring that it would not be shared, ie putting them in new folders or stopping uploading all together, then that is ok? I got confused.

AngylGrrl81, the "official" position of our site is to not have anything to do with RIAA music in the first place.

"Boycott" means that you BOYCOTT!

(Please read our "Mission Statement")

=========

If you feel that you "must" download the inferior RIAA pablum, please DO put it into non-shared folders. And for Godsakes, DO NOT SHARE IT!

"Sharing" is the SAME THING as promoting/advertising!

ONLY share/make available that which you want to become viable.

AngylGrrl81 -- First of all, my belated welcome.

" So are you saying that... that is ok?"

I did not say that. There is a question mark at the end of both sentences.

Apparently, even if sharing is turned off, the you can still see incomplete files in the process of being downloaded, especially if it's a large file, like a movie.

Distribution (aka uploading aka sharing) is the offense everyone gets charged with. This is merely a potential loophole. I was seeking opinions from the lawyers in the audience.

The only way to completely insulate yourself from an RIAA lawsuit is to erase any of their music from your hard drive. Do not download it, rip it or even buy it.

Anything less is asking for a lawsuit. It's illegal music that we have not been authorized to listen to unless appropriate fees have been paid by the artist to Clear Channel.

Ah Clear Channel...the true evil

I do not share any of the music i download....but I am new to all this, you must realize that.

I just read the list of RIAA members...and noticed a lot of labels that produce a lot of my favorite artists....but i do find some of the artists on those labels now hypocrits.....if they are against file sharing(i am an eminem fan and in one of his songs he says he'll download christina aguleras(sp) audio and mp3, thats why i find it odd). are there any lists of popular artists who are FOR file sharing? That would be very interesting to see.

I am educating myself slowly, so please don't kill me, honestly. I'm a newbie and i just feel that this entire witch hunt is to take focus off of more important things like ending the war or putting pedofiles away in the darkest prisons....i just don't get it honestly....because almost all the people that i know used to dl music and then if they really liked the artist they'd go out and buy the cd. or they'd look for really rare songs that you can't find anymore in cd stores.

TO be completely honest I hadn't heard much about RIAA since Napster and now with Grokster....and seriously if its money these assholes want, then why not asy, ok, listen, get pay pal on your download sites and make all the members pay at least 5 bucks every couple of months....i mean honestly...the people making the money off the songs and albums aren't the artists themselves its the labels and the agents

you know independentmusician, i just thought about what you said....i am seriosuly sitting here and thinking about RIAA companies....and a commercial came to mind...it was an NBC commericial that was flashing different companies that was owned by NBC or owned NBC....and its like no matter what you do, some way shape or form because most of the major labels like sony and mgm have ties to grocery store products or clothing.....you can't truly escape from the grasp of RIAA and MPAA.....its a giant conglomerate that has monopolized most of the big businesses out there....i mean even the computers we use, the tvs we watch, the radios we listen too....some how all are interconnected one way or another.....and its all about thus $$$ the immortal dollar sign.

hell everytime i go into a walmart i feel guilty as hell. my dad brought me up to be pro union...and walmart is anti union

wow gotta give those assholes credit.....they've made ways to make sure people can't truly boycott them entirely....

does that make anysense or am i just babbling

AngylGrrl81,

This site has been here for over 5 years. A LOT of the side-bar stuff is out-of date!

(Clickable links with content ...like the "friends and partners", "Boycott-Riaa Picks", "Mission Statement", and "Artists"
are the only things I have been able to keep up with to any extent so far.)

I appologize to you (AND EVERYONE) for not being able to keep it ALL current and up-to-date.

...but the REAL DEAL "goes down" here (as we are doing right now) here in these threads.

The rest of the links and stuff at our site is only ancillary.

No, you make a LOT of sense. They are so pervasive that there really IS no way to totally cut yourself off unless you give up ever earning/spending $$$ and become a hermit or something.

For now, I urge you to stop buying RIAA CD's and stop going to MPAA movies/buying MPAA DVD's

...AND to quit downloading or at least sharing the same.

FIND and enjoy INDEPENDENT music/art/movies/etc.

The Internet is HERE! The "illegit" indie stuff IS now available to replace what once only the cartel was able to provide.

(Secret: the independent stuff is created with more passion and heart. $$$ was not the prime motive for it! Therefore, don't you think that INDIE STUFF is probably much BETTER anyway?)

I just remembered, I download a song from Ani Difranco's site for free and i read some where that she is for file sharing.

I also remembered this local band from college and they loved p2p file sharing...they became very popular around the college town.

But you can't fault kids, like myself, who are only just learning about this whole feud. quite frankly in college, all we cared about was getting the songs for free.....personally we only cared about ourselves lol.

and a lot of times i buy used dvds and cds. (helluvalot cheaper imo). but it sucks, you know. you want to do more, you want to stick it to the man, the fat bastards who steal our money, but kids don't understand whats going on, and i'm talking about kids like that 12 year old girl who got sued....they don't understand the law as well as some of us do....hell the only laws i know is don't speed...lol....but getting back to my point...did i have a point, i forget, oh yeah, little kids and teens don't understand a lot of what the indie media is about, because they are spoonfed major media, seeing that those outlets are the only outlets out there.

File sharing is needed to get these indie outlets out there, to get them more publicized, to get them out there.

Our government and RIAA shouldn't put a stop to it, but find ways to work with file sharing programs...but free downloads will always exsist, RIAA/MPAA be damned, sharing programs will keep popping up.

I believe someone said that the ability to sue someone over stupid shit is what makes America great.....and quite frankly I have to agree.....you sue someone who dinged your car, you sue the cigarette company for the cigarettes...someone sued playboy for carpol(sp)tunel syndrome and now we have RIAA suing us peons because they don't have enough money lining their beds to keep them warm at night.

Pardon my language but F*CK them! They've screwed us more times then we can recall....how you ask, by wanting us to pay 25, 35, 45 dollars for DVDs and 15, 20, 25 dollars for CDs. The bastards only did this to themselves. people are getting sick and tired of having to pay an arm and a leg to listen to their favorite artist....and that is what pisses RIAA off...that they got out smarted by some punk hackers who got bored in college.

And as Moby was quoted, 'i'm thankful for filesharing, thats how a lot of people heard me and helped boost my sales.' RIAA/MPAA see file sharing as a curse when they should see it as a blessing in disguise....all these indie artists are getting popular from p2p....those fat cats are always looking for the next britnney or justin or backstreet boys...but maybe if they stopped for a moment, took a breather from counting their millions upon millions of dollars that were given to them by us the consumers, they'd realize that the older age groups don't want sugar coated pop singers, they want to listen to songs that have meaning, that have power that have good messages...not...i wanna screw till the break of dawn....

And what happens next? Are they going to sue Yahoo! or AOL because of the file sending on some of their programs...can't have attactments no more, someone might send a friend/family member a music file or can't have people using messangers to send music back and forth. RIAA/MPAA are acting like a bunch of five year olds that just had their fire truck stomped on. The only good that could come from this is the fact that indie artists get popular over the mainstream musical acts.

Ok...I think my rant is over.....phew.....well at least for now...lol

yes yes yes..that is what I am talking about..the spirit of the ruling. Sure if a person reads and totally understands whats goin on there...there can be somewhat of a sigh of relief or what not.

What i'm getting at is that alot innovators will just look at it and.."heh..I guess that fucks us!" without ever bothering to read. That's just the way it is. With the media knowing thats how people behave..never reading the fine print.. they will be able to use that to scare even more...leaving in only the details they want for their own good.

Thats all I was getting at.

I agree about how the long-term ramifications of the ruling will need time to play out. At the moment I think it's too soon to say, so we'll just have to wait.