Post by va3css on Mar 27, 2005 16:21:21 GMT -5
Link to Story
Sounds like Sony with their Betamax VCRs vs. the movie companies in 1984. Sony won, thankfully for us.
But this time, Sony Pictures is actually on the OTHER side of the bench...
Should the movie giants win this one, I see two big problems arising from it:
1) Movie companies will have full control (again) of what movies are available and for how much.
2) Grokster won't be the only "P2P" file sharing network affected by this.
KaZaa; eDonkey/Overnet; Limewire... the list is endless.
I remember a story about the Spiderman movie appearing on internet P2P networks BEFORE it even got released at the theatres. Yet, the movie still grossed over $22M bucks.
So much for the "file sharing hurts our revenues" argument...
Remember Napster? Well, since then, the RIAA has been overly vigilant in it's witchhunt of music downloaders. They even sued 12-year-old girls...
Well, one of the things that came out of that was that the methods used by the RIAA were unfair to those being prosecuted.
Basically, the RIAA would obtain the IP address of any user downloading music, and then send a subpeona to their ISP to obtain their true name, email address, etc. Then they'd file the lawsuit in court against them.
The problem with that is the end user had no idea they were even being charged until they were hauled into court to answer to claims that may not even apply to them.
For example: if the internet account is in my name, but me and my roommate share the cost of it, and both share the connection. He might be the one downloading the music, but I will be the one identified by the ISP, and thus charged by the RIAA.
The other problem is that in most other cases where suing is involved, the person being sued is notified of that fact at the time the lawsuit is filed, and thus given a chance to defend themselves. This wasn't true in the RIAA's case.
As of December, 2004, a court ruling has changed that, and now requires the RIAA to file a civil suit against the end user FIRST, and seek a subpoena based on that filing.
Link to RIAA story
But back to the P2P issue.
Will the court decide that simply giving someone the ability to break copyright laws is violation of copyright laws?
Or will the court decide that copyright is broken by the users themselves, not the technology they use?
Let's hope, for a change, that the judges show some common sense in this case, and allows the responsibility to remain on us internet users - not the technology that we exploit.
The list of plaintiffs in the case is a virtual "Who's who" of influential Hollywood record and film companies. The defendants in the case are Grokster and StreamCast Networks -- which provide software that allows peer-to-peer file sharing of music and movies on personal computers.
According to the plaintiffs, more than 90 percent of the files that are actually exchanged using the software consist of copyrighted material that the swapper -- that is, the person who makes files available for download on his or her computer -- has no right to distribute. For this reason, the plaintiffs -- who say they own the lion's share of the copyrights at issue -- seek whopping damages against Grokster and StreamCast.
Their theory of liability holds that Grokster and StreamCast are responsible for the software users' copyright infringement -- either because they contribute to users' infringement, or because the infringement is, in effect, their own. These two varieties of infringement are called "contributory" and "vicarious" infringement, respectively.
According to the plaintiffs, more than 90 percent of the files that are actually exchanged using the software consist of copyrighted material that the swapper -- that is, the person who makes files available for download on his or her computer -- has no right to distribute. For this reason, the plaintiffs -- who say they own the lion's share of the copyrights at issue -- seek whopping damages against Grokster and StreamCast.
Their theory of liability holds that Grokster and StreamCast are responsible for the software users' copyright infringement -- either because they contribute to users' infringement, or because the infringement is, in effect, their own. These two varieties of infringement are called "contributory" and "vicarious" infringement, respectively.
Sounds like Sony with their Betamax VCRs vs. the movie companies in 1984. Sony won, thankfully for us.
But this time, Sony Pictures is actually on the OTHER side of the bench...
Should the movie giants win this one, I see two big problems arising from it:
1) Movie companies will have full control (again) of what movies are available and for how much.
2) Grokster won't be the only "P2P" file sharing network affected by this.
KaZaa; eDonkey/Overnet; Limewire... the list is endless.
I remember a story about the Spiderman movie appearing on internet P2P networks BEFORE it even got released at the theatres. Yet, the movie still grossed over $22M bucks.
So much for the "file sharing hurts our revenues" argument...
Remember Napster? Well, since then, the RIAA has been overly vigilant in it's witchhunt of music downloaders. They even sued 12-year-old girls...
Well, one of the things that came out of that was that the methods used by the RIAA were unfair to those being prosecuted.
Basically, the RIAA would obtain the IP address of any user downloading music, and then send a subpeona to their ISP to obtain their true name, email address, etc. Then they'd file the lawsuit in court against them.
The problem with that is the end user had no idea they were even being charged until they were hauled into court to answer to claims that may not even apply to them.
For example: if the internet account is in my name, but me and my roommate share the cost of it, and both share the connection. He might be the one downloading the music, but I will be the one identified by the ISP, and thus charged by the RIAA.
The other problem is that in most other cases where suing is involved, the person being sued is notified of that fact at the time the lawsuit is filed, and thus given a chance to defend themselves. This wasn't true in the RIAA's case.
As of December, 2004, a court ruling has changed that, and now requires the RIAA to file a civil suit against the end user FIRST, and seek a subpoena based on that filing.
On December 19, 2003, in RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that it was not sufficient for the RIAA to simply send an ISP a form subpoena demanding the identity of a particular Internet subscriber -- as the RIAA had claimed was proper under the DMCA.
Rather, the court held, the RIAA had to first file a civil lawsuit against the "John Doe" defendants, and then seek a subpoena. The DMCA subpoena procedure, it ruled, only applied to materials hosted by an ISP -- such as information stored on its servers -- not materials for which the ISP merely acts as a conduit, such as P2P exchanges.
The Elektra decision builds on the Verizon decision by ensuring that the John Does have notice and an opportunity to contest the subpoenas to the ISPs, seeking their names. Previously, a customer's name would be disclosed before he or she even had a chance to challenge the subpoena to the ISP seeking the name.
Rather, the court held, the RIAA had to first file a civil lawsuit against the "John Doe" defendants, and then seek a subpoena. The DMCA subpoena procedure, it ruled, only applied to materials hosted by an ISP -- such as information stored on its servers -- not materials for which the ISP merely acts as a conduit, such as P2P exchanges.
The Elektra decision builds on the Verizon decision by ensuring that the John Does have notice and an opportunity to contest the subpoenas to the ISPs, seeking their names. Previously, a customer's name would be disclosed before he or she even had a chance to challenge the subpoena to the ISP seeking the name.
Link to RIAA story
But back to the P2P issue.
Will the court decide that simply giving someone the ability to break copyright laws is violation of copyright laws?
Or will the court decide that copyright is broken by the users themselves, not the technology they use?
Let's hope, for a change, that the judges show some common sense in this case, and allows the responsibility to remain on us internet users - not the technology that we exploit.
