Neowin.net - Supreme Court Shows Little Sympathy for P2P Networks

Supreme Court Shows Little Sympathy for P2P Networks

Posted by dbfriends on 29 March 2005 - 18:40 · 43 comments & 6234 views

Judges yesterday attacked the business models of file-sharing companies as the case which could effectively spell out the future for many peer-to-peer programs got under way. The Supreme Court questioned attorneys for both the firms and Hollywood studios - and also criticised the entertainment industry's proposal that those behind the software "predominantly" supported by piracy should be held liable for copyright infringement.

Record labels and film studios are facing off against Grokster and StreamCast in the courtroom, after two federal courts ruled in favour of P2P. They said the software should be looked at in the same way as a VCR or a photocopier as it has legal uses - however, the labelsand studios say the software has been built on, and is mainly used for, illegal downloads.

Ronald Katz, a copyright attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Philips, told CNet: "I think the court is going to affirm (the lower-court rulings). This doesn't fit in with the way copyright law is written. But it's not surprising that the law doesn't fit with something that didn't exist at the time the law was made."

The case has already been going on for some five years, and as Neowin previously reported, the file-sharing side has won support from internet billionaire Mark Cuban. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy told the firms: "What you are suggesting is unlawful expropriation of property as a kind of start-up capital. From an economic standpoint and legal standpoint, that sounds wrong." Many protesters turned up to support the software firms - but some were on the other side of the divide, with a group of musicians saying they were there to give a human face to the cost of illegal downloading. "When we don't get paid, we can't pay our rent," said Erin Enderlin, one of the songwriters.

View: CNet Coverage

View: Case background (from the Washington Post)

iPOD’s secret is marketing. iPOD won its first battle in 2002 when it surpassed Creative’s hard-disk based MP3 player which even had a smaller price. The secret weapon? The marketing team behind iPOD managed to promote the idea that iPOD is not just an equipment for playing music, but a whole concept. In December 2002, iPOD launches models that bear the signatures of stars like Madonna, Beck, Tony Hawk and No Doubt. All the celebrities fell in love with the little player, which made a career in video clips, music magazine, even at Oprah’s shows. Where could you get a better marketing?

iPOD’s second secret was Microsoft’s Windows. The first iPOD models launched in October 2001 only worked with Macs and iTunes program which copied CDs and then transferred to iPOD. Apple thought then that this combination will be enough to ensure the player’s success. By July 2002, 150,000 units had been sold. People were not ready to buy a Mac fro the sake o a MP3 player.

In July 2002 realized that and launched Windows compatible models which used as transfer software MusicMatch. In less than two years, iPod sales reached 2 million units. Microsoft found out too late what had happened and HP declared that is too late to think about an alternative and prefers to launch an iPOD version together with Apple. iTunes Music Store and the download revolution owe iPOD their celebrity and not the other way around.

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: dbfriends
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(6 replies) #1 Posted by idbuythatforadollar on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:15: Crap, this isn't good.

Do they not realise the precident this will set?

Hollywood made billions in previous years from the sales of VHS videos... which they tried to ban.

The way they distribute just needs to evolve. They need to be saved from themselves.

(2 replies) #2 Posted by TheSarge on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:24: Round and round and round we go.
If the supreme court is smart, they tell the RIAA that they are technicly in the right, and then award them a payment of one dollar. One whole dollar.
That'd show 'em.

(2 replies) #3 Posted by weenur on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:55: I just read the article, and it seems to me that the Supremes are going to try and preserve the law as it is, which is what the lower courts ruled in favor of. It'll be up to the Congress to change copyright law. Maybe I missed something... ?

#4 Posted by BeyondGodlike on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:04: man...the RIAA and the courts just dont get it do they

#5 Posted by nic on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:24: I think it is wrong for them to go after the actual network architects of P2P, as there are legit uses of P2P technology.

They should just be going after users who trade illegal files. I think we are going to see the end of privacy and anonymous surfing on the Internet within our lifetime. And then there is going to be a streamlined processes of handing out P2P violation citations in much the same way we have traffic citations.

I'm not looking forward to it, but that is what I'm predicting.

#6 Posted by WinMacLin on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:38: anything that gets ruled only effects USA right?..

How will they stop people from using P2P if they say its illegal in USA? will the ISP's watch peoples activity or something? ... someone explain exactly what will happen if they deem P2P an illegal activity?

#7 Posted by Gowcra on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:39: *******S!!!

(10 replies) #8 Posted by toadeater on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:44: P2P technology is not illegal! It's like the classic example of cars; should cars be made illegal because they're used for criminal activities? What about cell phones? How about pens? How about making reading illegal and burning all those evil books out there that put bad ideas in people's minds?

P2P has many legitimate uses, the most important of which is the mass distribution of software and media/information for independent and small companies. E.g. open-source software, non-profit broadcasting, news, music, demos, art assets, etc.

The supreme court needs to get its head out of its ass and judge according to the law, rather than allow itself to be influenced by corporate interests. If this continues, we will go straight to hell the way the Romans did once they succumbed to corruption and religious hypocrisy.

P.S. Die Terry Shiavo, die!

(2 replies) #9 Posted by quigley0 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:12: Um, what is up with the Shiavo comment?

Anyway, from what I understand, the recording and movie industry have never lost money because of these services, they have only had reduced profits. Which means, to me, that you are charging way to damn much for your crap. A CD of music should be 5 dollars. A movie? $10 tops.

my 2 cents

(9 replies) #10 Posted by Lexcyn on 29 Mar 2005 - 22:36: "When we don't get paid, we can't pay our rent"

I'm a student, and sometimes it's either buy a CD or eat supper. Just because they're artists, doesn't give them a higher standing than anyone else. We're all people trying to make a living.

#11 Posted by TC17 on 30 Mar 2005 - 03:44: The only way the judges would rule against file sharing networks is if the judges are computer illiterate... then they would not know how file sharing networks actually work.

Because there is absolutely nothing illegal about file sharing networks... two courts previously have also ruled this way.

#12 Posted by Ideas Man on 30 Mar 2005 - 11:44: Why not just make the TCP/IP protocol illegal. That was the whole start of this mess. It allowed computers to connect together on a very large scale waaay before P2P and you could still send stuff illegally.

On a side note, if people complain about loosing profits, maybe they should look at what they are 'singing' IMO, most of the stuff these days is utter crap.

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top