ClumsyMonkey.net

A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two companies.

In an almost complete reversal of previous victories for the record labels and movie studios, federal court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that Streamcast--parent of the Morpheus software--and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software. The ruling does not directly affect Kazaa, software distributed by Sharman Networks, which has also been targeted by the entertainment industry. "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."

While the ruling in no way validates the legality of downloading copyrighted music online, it would shield companies providing decentralized file-swapping software such as Gnutella from liability for the actions of people using their products. As such, it could provide new leverage for file-swapping companies such as Grokster, Streamcast and Sharman in negotiations with record companies and other copyright holders to license works legitimately.

Since Napster's $1 billion settlement offer with the record industry in 2001, file-swapping companies have repeatedly sought an amicable settlement with copyright holders but have been almost universally rebuffed.


Cool

Huzzaa! Huzzaa!

*dance*

i don't know whether to be happy or disapointed, on one hand the internet file sharing programs are great, but on the other, many people take advantage of it and only burn cd's, even if it is a bad cd, you're still listening to music they worked for for free

But why should certain individuals be sued for billions of dollars because they share music with the population? Let's say I only liked Do You Like It off of Gravity, but I found the other nine songs to suck. Why should I have to buy an entire cd for $10 when I can download the one song I like and be happy with it?

Anyways, some record labels want their music on the internet after the cd is released. Vagrant Records, the label that Alkaline Trio, Saves The Day, The Get Up Kids, and many other great bands are on, says they want kids to download their music if they don't mind the shitty rip job that usually gets onto Kazaa. Their only problem is with people that steal the demo cds months before the cd gets released and puts them on Kazaa, which is understandable.

And look at Glassjaw. You might not like them, but they don't mind if people download their music. In fact they tell the fans to download their first album, not to buy it.

So tell me this. If record labels and bands tell the fans to download their music, then why should the programs that hold all the music be punished? If anything, the RIAA should be out there suing the bands for saying it's ok to download their music.

The point here is that the software is just that... software. It can be used for good or bad. Napster got tagged because they had their own personal network housing the files. The software in question here, do not. The users are responsible for using it legally. Of course that doesn't happen, but that's not the software company's fault. (even though we know it is their intent). It's like suing gun companies because one of their products was used in a murder case. You just can't do it. I don't really agree with massive file sharing because it really isn't fair to the artists. However, they don't make money off of cd sales, the Record Company's get that gravy. (If anything mp3's help the artists by giving them more exposure, but that's another story). Anyways.. I'm rambling... but this case doesn't surprise me and I've been saying it for a while now, peer-to-peer file sharing has little to no liability.

yeah i'm not on either side of the issue, if i started speaking out agaisnt it i would be a hypocrite, i don't know what i would do with out Kazza, but i also go out and buy lots of cd's where as i know a large % of the ppulation only burns cd's now, and when they see me buying cd's they think i'm dumb or a sucker, when really i just support artists if i think they have good work

The way I see it, we should keep Napster, Kazaa, and all other file sharing software and networks legal and prospering. And we should charge people a monthly fee to use them. Downloads should be monitored, and a certain percentage of the money should be routed to the artists, based on how often their songs are downloaded. If you don't want to pay the fee to use this service, tough. It's ridiculous to expect to get such things for free.

That would only be a possibility if they could limit the artists that were on the system... which they can't. So you can't charge people money for work you didn't create.

Why would they have to limit it?

you can't sell music without the label's permission

Good point. I think they should still revamp the entire music industry and get with the times. If labels and artists want to continue making money, they need to work with the new technology, instead of ignoring it or railing against it.

I think programs such as Kazaa/Napster/whatever HELPS the artist. It gives the artist more exposure; therefore, I think, although I am not quite certain, that it makes concert sales go up. It also drives artists to make better albums as opposed to albums with one or two good songs on them because people will be more likely to purchase something after burning it if they really like it. Plus, it is possible to create CD's that will not rip correctly (such as the new Foo Fighters album). Also, I doubt that anyone could ever remove all of these downloading programs, internet piracy will always be here.

It doesn't matter anyways. CDs (as we know them) aren't going to last much longer. There are going to be un-rippable CDs (as Val said, One by One is a good example) as well as new CD formats (I heard of one on the radio the other day that is only going to be playable through home theater systems, and [if the music industry has it's way] they won't make a computer drive for).

The day that I can't play CD's on my computer, I will stop buying them. Enhanced CD's are frustrating enough.

media piracy will never go away... someone will always find a way to beat all the protection.

Yeah. The music industry won't have it's way. Any new format will eventually be computer compatable.

If you can hear it, you can copy it, and you can illegally share it. Until they make music that you can't hear, filesharing will go on.

At first you won't be able to copy a new format, as you'd have to play it on a different player. Soon enough, there would be a ROM for it (CD-ROM, DVD-ROM and < insert new format here >-ROM).

i agree that these networks provide great exposure, in fact all my favorite bands besides OLP were found through the net, but unlike most people i go out and buy the albums, where as they just burn them, i think they should continue on with the current media program, you know the commercials recently that have been about buy music to make more music, as someone said we're never going to stop filesharing, but we can try to educate the public to buy cds again, and support bands, otherwise being a music artist will notr pay the bill anymore, and people are going to stop making music to sell or share