What really bugs me is companies like sony who go out to shut down file sharing services but happily punt mp3 players - in fact last time I went to dixons there was a sign above the mp3 players illustrating "Download / Rip music -> Portable Mp3 Player". Surely if they outlawed file-sharing software they'd have to outlaw mp3 players by the same twisted logic ?
</rant> ;) Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: Odeluga, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org > Subject: (313) Music Downloading Co Wins Case > > > File-Sharing Judgment in U.S. Frustrates Entertainment Firms > --- Industry May Mount Fight To Quash Illegal Copying Of > Protected Works on Web > > By Anna Wilde Mathews in Los Angeles and Nick Wingfield in > San Francisco 1,135 words 28 April 2003 The Wall Street > Journal Europe A1 English (Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & > Company, Inc.) > > A U.S. federal court dealt a major blow to the entertainment > industry's fight against Internet file-sharing software, a > ruling that will likely force the industry to intensify its > legal pursuit of individuals who distribute copyrighted works > through online swapping networks. > > Friday's ruling came in a case brought by major record > labels, movie studios and music publishers against Grokster > Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., which provide file-sharing > software called Grokster and Morpheus that allows users to > trade music and movie files between their computers. But > rather than shut down the file-sharing software, as the > industry hoped, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson > in Los Angeles ruled that Grokster and StreamCast aren't > breaking copyright laws by making their software available. > > That is largely because the companies aren't operating > centralized services that allow them to monitor the > activities -- and copyright infringements -- of their users. > The companies didn't have "actual knowledge of infringement > at a time when they can use that knowledge to stop the > particular infringement," he wrote. Kazaa, a file-sharing > program owned by Sharman Networks Ltd., wasn't covered in the ruling. > > Courts had ruled against companies that facilitate online > swapping of copyrighted works, including Napster Inc., which > closed in the summer of 2001 after a federal court in San > Francisco ordered it to remove pirated music from its > service. But Napster's service operated by hosting a "central > list" of the files available on each user's computer, while > Grokster and Morpheus simply provide software that allow > users to connect directly to one another. > > Entertainment companies said they will appeal. But if it > stands, the ruling will squarely focus their legal efforts on > the individual users who are large-scale online distributors > of tunes and films -- a direction in which record labels have > already been moving. Indeed, even as they played down the > decision's importance, the industry emphasized the ruling's > view that indivdual file-sharers' activities are illegal. > > Peer-to-peer users' acts "are illegal and the court > recognized this," said Zach Horowitz, president and chief > operating officer of Vivendi Universal SA's Universal Music > Group, the biggest music company. File-sharing software > providers "may have won a temporary legal victory, but they > will ultimately lose the long-term battle because of the > dangers and deficiencies inherent in their systems," he added. > > Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture > Association of America, said the ruling reaffirmed copying > works is "stealing," adding, "we have an excellent chance of > obliterating this decision on appeal." > > The peer-to-peer software firms said the ruling exonerated > them, however. It also lent them a new legitimacy that may > help draw investments, advertising and other support that has > been slow to come while their legal future was in jeopardy. > "For the last month or so everyone assumed we would lose this > suit," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster. "I've been > posing this question publicly -- what are you going to do > when we win?" > > Tom Bratkovich, acting CEO of StreamCast Networks, said. > "File-sharing software on the Internet is something the > courts are going to stand by." > > The music companies blame peer-to-peer networks, in > combination with compact-disc burning, for recent sharp > declines in their sales. They have already begun warning > universities and major companies that they could be liable > for employees' and students' activities on their computer systems. > > Pursuing individual copyright infringers is a cumbersome > process, however, in part because it is very difficult to > identify who the abusers are without a subpoena. The industry > has made some progress on that point. So far a federal judge > in Washington D.C. has backed their argument that Internet > service providers, such as Verizon Communications Inc., must > identify customers when copyright owners find evidence that > they are breaking the law. Those rulings are expected to be > appealed soon by Verizon. > > The recording companies have also sued four university > students around the U.S. for allegedly operating campus-wide > file-sharing networks -- a move that recording executives > believe led several other similar campus operations to close. > > Entertainment companies will also likely approach lawmakers > to consider changes to copyright law, though Mr. Valenti said > the MPAA had no immediate plans to do so. Democratic Rep. > Howard Berman of California, who last year introduced a bill > that would have helped copyright holders use technology > against peer-to-peer networks, said the ruling appeared > "fundamentally unfair." "I don't think it should stand," he > said. "Either through the judicial process, or congressional > action, there needs to be a response." > > The ruling also adds to the pressure on music and movie > companies to improve legitimate online music services that > are attempting to compete against the free swapping networks. > Record labels have been authorizing more such offerings, > including a new Internet music service set to be unveiled > today by Apple Computer Inc. Several big movie studios are > distributing films through an online service called Movielink > LLC. At the same time, entertainment companies are likely to > continue ramping up technological attacks aimed at making the > peer-to-peer networks less functional, with methods that > include flooding them with fake and mislabeled files. > > It's not clear what the focus of the music and movie > companies' appeal will be, but issues at stake will likely > revolve around two past cases. One is a landmark 1984 U.S. > Supreme Court decision involving the Sony Betamax, the early > videocassette recorder that was found to have "substantial > noninfringing uses" despite its helpfulness to individuals > making unauthorized copies of movies. In last week's ruling, > Judge Wilson found that the providers of peer-to-peer > software were "not significantly different from companies > that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of > which can be and are used to infringe copyrights," and > referred to the 1984 decision. > > The other major relevant case is that of Napster, which lost > in both U.S. federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit > Court of Appeals, the same court that will hear the appeal of > last week's ruling. Judge Wilson found that Grokster and > StreamCast were essentially different from Napster because > they had no centralized lists of the files that users were > sharing. Because Grokster and StreamCast "provide software > that communicates across networks that are entirely outside > [their] control," they could not be held liable for > activities on those decentralized networks, he wrote. > > Music and movie companies, in their complaint, had argued > that the software providers were aware of the copyright > infringements by users of their applications, and could limit > such activities if they tried. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
