Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

File Sharing Companies Given Green Light

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

August 20, 2004, 12:20 PM

A federal appeals court has struck a blow to the entertainment industry's quest to shut down file sharing networks, affirming a lower court's decision that companies are not violating copyright laws simply because users are trading music and movies.

The ruling, which comes from the same court that helped shut down Napster, means defendants Grokster, StreamCast and Sharman Networks will be allowed to continue distributing their software. The court said Grokster and Morpheus had legitimate uses, even if the majority of users are trading illegal content.

However, the RIAA will now likely intensify efforts to go after consumers using the services and seek federal legislation against file sharing. "This decision does nothing to absolve these businesses from their responsibility... to address the rampant illegal use of their networks," said RIAA chairman Mitch Bainwol.

Add a Comment (9 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By jjmalaska

posted Aug 29, 2004 - 3:13 PM

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who make a comment, seem to be intellegent, communicative people, yet have no concept of grammar, diction, of spelling. Please, for crying out loud, LEARN TO WRITE, you idiots!

Score: 0

By nilst2004

posted Aug 25, 2004 - 4:27 AM

I can only say, if the entertainment companies lowered their prices the piracy would go down. Music, videos, software a.s.o must become cheaper !

Score: 0

By compuoddity

posted Aug 24, 2004 - 3:52 PM

The fact of the matter is that companies can not expect to continue selling their wares on pieces of plastic and an increasingly insane amount. However, I can not agree with theft, which is what is occurring when you trade a movie/software/music piece over the net. However, the companies that provide this software shouldn't be sued. Or we should go after others. How about the gun industry? knives? Their tools are used to do illegal actions. Maybe we should just spy on everyone and arrest them every time they do something wrong? The problem is everyone's trying to reinvent the wheel, when we need to find some other form of transportation.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Aug 25, 2004 - 12:47 PM

"The fact of the matter is that companies can not expect to continue selling their wares on pieces of plastic and an increasingly insane amount."

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but the fact of the matter is prices on music CD's are high BECAUSE of piracy--high prices did not cause the piracy to begin with. I agree about sueing again except for the (should be) illegal "spyware" these companies include with their file sharing software.

Score: 0

By firechild7976

posted Aug 25, 2004 - 4:03 PM

The prices being high because of file-sharing is not true. Computer software and videogames have always been around the same price. Many people use file-sharing to download songs because why buy a cd with 12 songs, but only 2 that you like? That is just a waste of money.

Score: 0

By speedmeister

posted Aug 21, 2004 - 12:37 AM

The problem I see with the Recording and Motion Picture Industries position of trying to sue these file sharing networks is that their goal is inconsistent with what the consequences of a sucessful lawsuit. The reality is that a court decision outlawing file sharing networks would do little to retard their growth. Many of these networks have already been moving their presences of out of the jurisdiction of US courts. What's the RIAA going to do when the largest file sharing networks are based in some haven for piracy like China? In that scenario they would do little to reduce piracy but just move the distributors outside of the reach of US law.

Given how ridiculous the position that the MPAA and the RIAA have taken on technology you wonder how dumb these people are? Back in 1998 when they tried to sue Diamond Media to stop the release of the Rio 300, the very first portable digital music player, and the court's ruled against them. That case was downright frivolous. The lawyers the RIAA had in that case either knew nothing about IP law or simply thought they could scare the IT industry into submission. With their support of legislation from DMCA to the proposed Inducing Infringement Act it seems like the RIAA and the MPAA strategy against piracy was to do everything in their power to try to inhibit the growth of digital media. If the major studios had gotten their way much of the digital media technology we have today would have been either too expensive or too limiting to be usable for most consumers.

I will never understand why the Recording and Movie studios have been so slow to embrace digital media. If they had spent the last 7-8 years embracing the technology and producing more products that allowed consumers to make legitimate use of this technology maybe there wouldn't be as much piracy. Until Apple's ITunes music store was launched the only options to get music were to buy a cd and rip the tracks yourself or go to one of the filesharing networks. The first option isn't very convenient anymore because there aren't very many music stores anymore due ironically to the recording industries failure to offer good alternatives to music sharing services.

The 9th circuit definitely made the right decision and we should hope that US Supreme Court doesn't decide to overrule the appeals court and enviscerate the Betamax decision.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Aug 23, 2004 - 3:58 PM

While I agree with your comments, File sharing networks still need to be sued--for an entirely different reason: spyware. The license agreement mentions that you agree to using the spyware, but:

1. Nobody ever reads license agreements;
2. If I had a license agreement that said "by downloading my software, you agree to my software crippling your PC where you cannot even use the internet, make you more susceptible to viruses, and corrupt Internet Explorer", would this be a *legal* contract? It steals your data as well, since when was stealing legal?

The vendors who distribute these ad-based programs are no worse than the people who use them illegaly if you ask me.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Aug 20, 2004 - 9:55 PM

Looks like Mitch Bainwol and his firm are having some problems convincing the federal appeals court that what they are doing is illegal.

I figured they would have put those companies out by now. It in its most basic form illegal to just trade movies that are not out yet, music you don't own, and programs you did not buy.

I do it and so do many, many others and that is why they will never stop it...

Score: 0

By BladeZero

posted Aug 21, 2004 - 3:08 AM

I'm glad, and so are alot of people Jack Valenti is peacin' out of the MPAA.

Long overdue, and a blow to him, and his company when he is about to leave behind his last lost battle, stopping DVD screeners which would have hurt the independant industry dramatically but without the slightest shrug of compassion to them.

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 8:44 PM ET Mozilla's Aza Raskin: The journey back to Ubiquity

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal