[FoRK] Rip. Mix. Burned.
Mon Jun 27 18:14:53 PDT 2005
Also, a great roundup here:
On 6/27/05, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/05, Ian Andrew Bell (FoRK) <fork at ianbell.com> wrote:
> > Under the "it may not be as bad as it seems category" this judgment
> > implicates not necessarily P2P networks in general, but in fact those
> > that encourage music and movie sharing over their networks. The
> > effect, however, will be that such networks have to weigh the cost
> > and possibility of a volley of pre-emptive lawsuits by Hollywood, and
> > anyone designing devices had better consider whether their omission
> > of DMCA-approved copyright protection constitutes "encouragement".
> You've missed footnote 12 to the decision, which states fairly clearly
> that the inclusion of DRM, etc., is only relevant if the first test
> ('are they explicitly encouraging infringement') is already
> applicable. So the more likely outcome is that all p2p will come with
> big warning stickers saying 'don't use this for copyright violation',
> and lots of instructions on how to download shakespeare. Oh, and lots
> of verbal warnings to new hires that they are never to talk about the
> rampant filesharing their tools will allow. As someone put it on one
> of the group blogs today, it'll be like 'tobacco shops' and their
> not-a-bong-we-swear products. Anyway, footnote 12 appears to make it
> fairly clear that taking those steps would innoculate you. [Note that
> Fred Lohman of the EFF seems to disagree strongly with this, but then
> again, that's how he gets paid :)
> It's even been speculated that under this ruling, 2600 might have won
> at least the copyright-infringement portion of the decss case, though
> the reverse engineering bits would probably still have nailed them.
> It's important to understand that the EFF could not have asked for a
> more repulsive client- Grokster's internal and external actions were
> clearly in favor of 'steal as much as you want, as quickly as you
> can'. Despite that, which elicited obvious sympathy from the justices
> for MGM (I went to the case) they got to the supreme court, and sony
> was protected.
> > By my interpretation of this judgment, companies like Apple could be
> > sued for products and campaigns like their 2001 "Rip. Mix. Burn."
> > campaign.. which drove the music industry crazy.
> That does appear to be correct; they cite advertising as a key measure
> of intent, and Rip, Mix, Burn was pretty blatant. Of course, in the
> oral arguments the industry conceded that ripping to an iPod was
> legal, so that particular issue might be moot in the future anyway.
> OTOH, it does look that this logic makes something like bittorrent
> almost completely safe, given the insistence from that camp from day
> one that it was for use for things like linux distros, and the massive
> use of it for exactly that purpose.
> > In America, anyway, this will further perpetuate the entertainment
> > industry's collective denial of the elephant in the bathroom, and
> > make their eventual decline and demise that much more rapid when the
> > time comes.
> It has been speculated that the Sup. Court threaded this needle deftly
> enough that it actually not only will piss off the content industries
> because of its preservation of Sony, but also will forestall further
> legislation, by allowing the pro-innovation forces (like Intel) to
> claim that the industry already has the bludgeon it needs to kill the
> next Napster dead, and doesn't need any more legislation.
> Anyway, for better reading than the NYT article, try:
> I've also blogged about it here:
> > -Ian.
> > -----
> > http://nytimes.com/2005/06/27/technology/27cnd-grokster.html
> > June 27, 2005 - Court Rules File-Sharing Networks Can Be Held Liable
> > for Illegal Use
> > By LORNE MANLY
> > The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that Internet
> > file-sharing services like Grokster and StreamCast Networks could be
> > held responsible if they encouraged users to trade songs, movies and
> > television shows online without paying for them.
> > The case, which pitted the entertainment industry against technology
> > companies in the continuing battle over the proper balance between
> > protecting copyrights and fostering innovation, overturns lower court
> > decisions that found the file-sharing networks were not liable
> > because their services allowed for substantial legitimate uses. The
> > justices said there was enough evidence that the Web sites were
> > seeking to profit from their customers' use of the illegally shared
> > files for the case to go back to lower court for trial.
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
More information about the FoRK