Downloading - the end may be nigh!

[mc_squared]

File-sharing suffers major defeat

The US Supreme Court has ruled that file-sharing companies are to blame for what users do with their software.

The surprise ruling could start a legal assault on the creators of file-sharing networks such as Grokster and Morpheus.

 

The case was brought by 28 movie and music makers who claimed that rampant piracy was denting profits.

 

The Supreme Court judges were expected to rule in favour of the file-sharers because of legal precedents set when video recorders first appeared.

 

Big win

 

 

READ THE RULING

 

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Reader.

 

The unanimous ruling is a victory for recording companies and film studios in what is widely seen as one of the most important copyright cases in years.

 

The legal case against Streamcast Networks - which makes the software behind Grokster and Morpheus - began in October 2001 when 28 media companies filed their legal complaint.

 

The complaint alleged that Streamcast was prospering on the back of the unfettered piracy taking place on the file-sharing networks.

 

However, the attempts to win damages suffered a series of defeats as successive courts sided with the file-sharing networks. The judges in those lower courts cited a ruling made in 1984 over Sony's Betamax video recorder.

 

In that case, the Supreme Court said that the majority of people using a video recorder for legal uses outweighed any illegal use of the technology.

 

 

 

 

 

But in this latest ruling the judges sets aside this precedent and the lower court decisions and means the makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if they use it to break the law.

 

In the ruling Justice David Souter wrote: "The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product."

 

He added: "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."

 

Reaction to the ruling was swift.

 

Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said: ""Today's unanimous ruling is an historic victory for intellectual property in the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and lawful Internet businesses."

 

John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said: "It quite simply destroys the argument that peer-to-peer services bear no responsibility for illegal activities that take place on their networks."

 

In other decisions on Monday, the Supreme Court:

 

 

ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky courtrooms but approved a monument to the same in Texas

 

declined to hear appeals by two US journalists facing a contempt ruling by a lower court over their investigation into an alleged White House intelligence leak

 

overturned a ruling that cable operators' high-speed internet lines must be opened up to rivals.

The rulings came on the last day of the US Supreme Court's current judicial session. It now breaks for a three-month recess.

One expected announcement that did not appear concerned the retirement of 80-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

 

 

Justice Rehnquist is suffering from thyroid cancer, breathes through a tracheal tube and struggled to talk during a speech closing the current court term that thanked court workers.

 

Unseen effects

 

In its ruling the Supreme Court said there was "substantial evidence" that Streamcast Networks had "induced" people to use its software to illegally share copyrighted files.

 

It is unclear yet what action this ruling will prompt from movie studios and music makers who brought the original case. It could mean claims for substantial damages from Streamcast or moves to get the file-sharing networks shut down.

 

 

Wayne Rosso, former Grokster president and now head of legal file-sharing system Mashboxx, said: ""If I'm running the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America], you're going to see lawsuits coming down like a Texas hailstorm. Don't be surprised to see an unusually large number filed immediately."

He said it would mean that users would have to get used to paying for music.

 

Michael McGuire, from analyst firm GartnerG2, said: "It's something of a surprise. It will be interesting to see how record labels respond. It could be argued that these peer-to-peer services were the most efficient way to deliver rich media."

 

The decision could also have an impact on any technology firm developing gadgets or devices that let people enjoy media on the move.

 

If strictly interpreted the ruling means that these hi-tech firms will have to try to predict the ways people can use these devices to pirate copyrighted media and install controls to stop this infringement.

 

The ruling could also prompt a re-drafting of copyright laws by the US Congress.

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm

 

Published: 2005/06/27 16:09:51 GMT

 

© BBC MMV

[mc_squared]

Q&A: File-sharing ruling

In a shock decision the US Supreme Court has ruled that the firms behind file-sharing networks must answer for what people do on these systems. Here we take a look at the decision and the implications it has for the future.

 

 

What did the court decide?

 

The US Supreme Court has said that Streamcast Networks - which created the software behind Grokster and Morpheus file-sharing systems - can be held responsible for the rampant piracy on those networks.

 

Streamcast had argued that it could not be held responsible for the uses its software was put to, but the Supreme Court justices did not agree. They said there was "substantial evidence" that Streamcast had profited by promoting copyright infringement or piracy.

 

The Supreme Court has not outlawed legitimate file-sharing. It has simply called Streamcast to account for encouraging the infringement of copyright.

 

The case will now be sent back to a lower court where the media firms that filed the original complaint are expected to press for substantial damages.

 

Why is this ruling a surprise?

 

Because all the lower courts sided with Streamcast and said that it did not have to answer for this piracy and backed up its case with legal precedents.

 

The main historical court case Streamcast drew on was the Supreme Court ruling in 1984 on Sony versus Universal Studios.

 

In that judgement the Supreme Court judges said that the Betamax video recorder should not be outlawed because there were more legitimate uses, and users, of it than illegitimate ones.

 

Also many other courts have declined to make hi-tech firms, such as net providers, answer for what users do with their technology. And that is what the Supreme Court justices have upheld in this decision.

 

File-sharing technology has not been censured - in fact the justices noted the many legitimate uses of the technology - but the promotion of it for piracy has been.

 

Interestingly, the decision in the Streamcast case was reportedly unanimous, even though some of the justices sitting now were also on the Supreme Court bench when the ruling on Sony's Betamax video recorder was made.

 

The ruling is also a surprise because the US technology sector generates far more money than the music and movie industries and many pundits expected this to carry weight with the Supreme Court.

 

Why is this ruling significant?

 

Because of the big changes taking place in the way that people get hold of and consume music, movies and TV programmes.

 

There is no doubt that Napster and the other file-sharing systems that followed it have revealed a huge pent-up demand for digital media. Arguably the iPod and iTunes would never have been as successful without Napster and its ilk.

 

Although the music and movie industries are fighting the networks to stop piracy, it is widely believed that some kind of file-sharing system will eventually be the best way for fans to get hold of the content they want to consume.

 

It is likely though that a locked-down network that limits sharing, such as iTunes and all its rivals, will be the music and movie industries' preferred route for this downloading.

 

This ruling is likely to give content owners more power to demand that secure locks be put on the digital media being offered.

 

Can I still use my iPod/MP3 player/portable video viewer?

 

You can. The ruling only concerns Streamcast and its encouragement of copyright infringement not specific technologies. However, the ruling is likely to encourage content owners, ie record labels and film studios, to pursue persistent pirates.

 

They may also go after firms that do not do enough to encourage what they see as "responsible" use of their technologies.

 

There are also fears that the ruling will stifle future innovation. If the ruling is applied in its strictest sense it could mean that any maker of a gadget or device must try to predict the ways that users could abuse its creation to get round copyright laws. They must also put in place controls that stop these infringements.

 

This could mean far more restrictions on what you can do with the music and movies you buy.

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4628291.stm

 

Published: 2005/06/27 18:00:05 GMT

 

© BBC MMV

[victaniac]

Idiots. Basically that means I won't be purchasing any album then. I never buy an album without listening to it first (Coldplay being the exception) so if I can't find it in the net anywhere, I don't buy it.

 

I just wish these people would realize that people that want to steal music will find a way to do it anyway, it's the honest folks that actually download an album and then buy it, that get screwed.

[mc_squared]

Some guy in the U.K. (who's a BitTorrent feeder) is being sued for hundreds of thousands by the BPI.

Might be worth spreading the word...................................

[Cringer]

yeah i heard about that on CNN the day the ruling was passed by the supreme court or whatever that was. stupid. if they didn't produce so much crappy music maybe more people would buy more of them. same goes for movies. there is just seldomly quality stuff out. I think if I lived in the US I wouldn't need to download because they actually have decent prices on stuff...but in Germany...not really. Such a pain. Why can't they keep the hands off those programs...they already killed my best friend Napster lol

[timeo]

The Liberal government in the fall session will introduce legislation to prevent downloading of copyrighted materials. :( So much for being protected! They better fucking get rid of that levy on making copies on blank cd's then because I'm not getting taxed twice god damn it. ...and just when you thought they got it right with same sex marriage, they screw up downloading! GR

[mc_squared]

The Liberal government in the fall session will introduce legislation to prevent downloading of copyrighted materials. :( So much for being protected! They better fucking get rid of that levy on making copies on blank cd's then because I'm not getting taxed twice god damn it. ...and just when you thought they got it right with same sex marriage' date=' they screw up downloading! GR[/quote']

 

PREVENT?? :huh:

"Same sex marriage" had nothing to do with money........................'nuff said.

[busybeeburns]

don't bother buying any CDs any more, simply either download it legally via sites like bignoisemusic or illegally, both are mp3 format. They you can transfer to any HDD you like be it a PC or MP3 player.

[mc_squared]

don't bother buying any CDs any more' date=' simply either download it legally via sites like bignoisemusic or illegally, both are mp3 format. They you can transfer to any HDD you like be it a PC or MP3 player.[/quote']

 

Are you suggesting the problem is only going to be with "Wave" files??

Not sure what you're getting at.

Do you mean that if the files are in mp3 format to start with there isn't a problem, whereas anything on a "protected" CD can't be converted into mp3?? :huh:

[timeo]

PREVENT?? :huh:

"Same sex marriage" had nothing to do with money........................'nuff said.

 

Well not prevent perse, but more like make it illegal in the hopes of preventing downloading.

 

Thanks for your intimate knowledge on same sex marriage!

[*Coldplay Lover*]

I like downloading...because I can use that one instead of using the new one when I buy it, b/c then it will get scratches!! I had the Coldplay cd like 4 weeks before it came out!! But the VMI (Virgin Mobile Insiders) sent it to me for free because I was in the top 200!! Yeah for me!! So now I only listen to the burned copy so that the real one wont get scratched!!

 

Love Always,

Mercedita :D (My real name)

[mc_squared]

 

 

 

mc_squared wrote:

PREVENT??

"Same sex marriage" had nothing to do with money........................'nuff said.

 

 

Well not prevent perse, but more like make it illegal in the hopes of preventing downloading.

 

But I thought it already WAS technically illegal - that's why all these writs are being sent out??

[Black Rose]

It is already illegal, but how are they going to stop people doing it?

 

If I download music from limewire, I make sure I remove it from my system within 12 hours, then re-burn it onto my computer in 128 kb/s. Hence they can't sue me because I'm using the loophole in the law.

[jdo145]

Huh? I only download live shows from artists anyway, and I thought that was legal since they're not commercially available for sale. :huh:

[timeo]

But I thought it already WAS technically illegal - that's why all these writs are being sent out??

 

You need to read http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html

 

Downloading music by law here in Canada is not considered illegal. Putting songs onto shared folders on Kazaa is not considered distribution and is thus not considered illegal.