June 29, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Industries digest Grokster ruling
- Related Stories
-
File-swap fallout in Supreme Court ruling
June 27, 2005 -
iMesh almost ready to become paid file-swap network
February 17, 2005 -
Movie blackout for P2P networks?
February 10, 2005 -
Music rebels seek to tame P2P
November 16, 2004 -
Record labels settle with Israeli P2P company
July 20, 2004 -
RIAA sues iMesh file-trading firm
September 19, 2003
It wasn't that he was surprised by the outcome. In fact, he had bet his future on a decision that would tip the legal scales toward the music industry. Summer, who is also former head of the Recording Industry Association of America, had agreed three months ago to become executive chairman of iMesh, a popular file-swapping company in the process of replacing its unregulated downloads with a service approved by the music labels.
Still, the unanimity of the court's decision was unexpected. From his office in iMesh's midtown Manhattan headquarters, he called a friend who was still a top executive at Sony Music to compare notes. Then he called other music industry types, shared a few congratulations and talked about where they would go from here.
What's new:
Supreme Court's decision has cast a dark cloud over the future of companies seeking to profit from swapping software.
Bottom line:
Executives are mulling how the ruling will change the landscape for file swapping and the music and movie industries.
The first task at hand is understanding how Monday's landmark ruling against Grokster and StreamCast Networks will change the landscape for file swapping and for the music and movie industries. While far from a death knell for unregulated peer-to-peer networks, the decision has certainly cast a dark cloud over the future of companies seeking to profit from swapping software.
For two years, peer-to-peer software companies operated with the relative security of two court rulings that had given them a clean bill of legal health despite repeated lawsuits from the record industry and movie studios.
But now, with a unanimous Supreme Court decision saying otherwise, big content companies are already turning their sights on peer-to-peer software companies that have managed to stay out of the courtroom, such as Lime Wire and eDonkey.
Robert Summer,
executive chair,
iMesh
"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business," Donald Verrelli, the attorney who argued on behalf of the record labels and Hollywood studios in front of the Supreme Court, said in a press conference Monday. "They do all the same things that Grokster and StreamCast do, in the same ways. I think we'll have a strong case against them as well."
For their part, file-swapping software executives aren't saying much. Executives from BearShare, Lime Wire and eDonkey--all leading peer-to-peer software companies--declined requests for comment or did not return calls. One Lime Wire executive was quoted in The New York Times as saying he is skeptical about his service's future.
Wayne Chang, the 21-year-old founder of i2Hub, said cautiously that he will continue operating his college-focused service, which facilitates textbook sales and offers a Friendster-like dating service, as well as file swaps. Although i2Hub users have been sued for swapping movies, he said his company doesn't actively encourage or "induce" illegal behavior and so shouldn't be in danger under the court's ruling.
"We don't condone or promote activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners," he said. "We're waiting to see how things unfold over the next few days and weeks."
From the emboldened record industry's perspective, these companies have only a few options: keep swapping and be sued; stop swapping and go out of business; or, as Summer's iMesh is in the process of
See more CNET content tagged:
Grokster Ltd.,
iMesh,
file-swapping,
LimeWire,
P2P
The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.
Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.
The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.
Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.
"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."
But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?
"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."
But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?
They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.
What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.
Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.
And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.
With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.
A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).
A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.
Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.
We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.
Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.
It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.
Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.
Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.
It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.
Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.
So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.
However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.
I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.
2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.
3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.
You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.
I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.
What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.
Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).
And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".
A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.
Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".
Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).
So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.
Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).
And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...
>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"
That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".
>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"
In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.
>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"
What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?
Why would I have a problem with that..?
>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."
Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.
It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".
But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.
They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.
What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.
Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.
And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.
With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.
A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).
A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.
Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.
We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.
Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.
It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.
Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.
Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.
It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.
Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.
So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.
However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.
I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.
2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.
3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.
You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.
I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.
What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.
Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).
And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".
A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.
Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".
Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).
So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.
Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).
And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...
>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"
That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".
>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"
In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.
>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"
What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?
Why would I have a problem with that..?
>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."
Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.
It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".
But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd
It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.
It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.
- Legitimizing P2P
-
by William Squire
May 1, 2008 5:01 PM PDT
- The court case will help legitimize P2P software and companies by allowing for the prosecution of companies encouraging illegal use of the software. This ruling will clean up the P2P industry so that businesses and consumers alike can feel more secure in their selection of P2P tools.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 24 Comments >>http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd