Studios and labels lose p2p fight
p2pnet.net News Opinion:- In the landmark Morpheus / Grokster decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit ruled p2p operators aren’t responsible for their users’ online file-swapping activities.
“This decision does nothing to absolve these businesses from their responsibility as corporate citizens to address the rampant illegal use of their networks,” says RIAA boss Mitch Bainwol and, “We will continue to pursue all avenues in our power to fight those who illicitly profit from our members’ valuable property,” the MPAA’s Jack Valenti states.
Does that mean we can expect law suits launched by Big Music’s enforcer the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) against former entertainment industry ‘consumers’ to be ramped up with the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) joining in more enthusiastically than hitherto?
Hollywood has already made a move to bolster support for INDUCE, another of its weapons of mass destruction, suggesting that the Big Four record label cartel members and the major studios intend to continue their efforts to kill the embryo p2p industry instead of using it to help them into the 21st century.
“From the advent of the player piano, every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copyright owners, often resulting in federal litigation,” wrote Judge Sidney Thomas. “This appeal is the latest reprise of that recurring conflict, and one of a continuing series of lawsuits between the recording industry and distributors of file-sharing computer software.”
And in conclusion, “[...] as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.
“Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, ‘The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress’.”
Just after the decision was announced, “This ruling represents a hard-fought victory for not only Morpheus, but also for our fellow p2p developers,” StreamCast networks ceo Mike Weiss told p2pnet.
“It’s a victory for American innovation. Perhaps more importantly, history will show it’s a bigger win for the entertainment industry which, hopefully, will now embrace new technologies like those that power Morpheus to seek new opportunities for artists and creators in the digital domain rather than spending their time and money trying to stifle innovation.”
This fight was won but the battle is far from over with congress designated as the next front line. And with such as senator Orrin Hatch acting as Hollywood’s generals, it’ll be bloody.
However, although the entertainment industry will sink to any depth, no matter how base, to gain its objectives, thanks to the internet and peer-to-peer technologies, for the first time in history ‘consumers’, the corporate world’s contemptuous name for the people who keep it in business, hold the whip hand.
It’s going to be interesting.





August 21st, 2004 at 7:09 pm
“We will continue to pursue all avenues in our power to fight those who illicitly profit from our members’ valuable property,” the MPAA’s Jack Valenti states.
Did you notice the falsity he said? “Illicitly Profit”, hmmm..As far as i knew, there was no “profit” on the filesharing networks, it’s a strictly volunteer basis. So if they’re going after those profit, then why are innocent people who share for free their mp3 collections being targetted and sued?
You see, they say one thing for the press-releases, then do the exact opposite.
August 22nd, 2004 at 9:57 am
the “entertainment industry” did not lose their appeal. artists and indipendendent labels are part of the the industry as well.
August 24th, 2004 at 4:10 pm
Jass,
When I BOUGHT Latisha that matching Benz and she tried to poisen me and never even went to get that car from the dealership I think the Real ANGELS would not allow her to receive that blessing that belonged to YOU. Now I dont think I have a endless amount of options because,… You might have somebody else,… and I might have been chosen for somebody else,….. and if that is so that deleates all of my fears,.. about not looking into your eyes,.. and the blessings that were meant for me might be comming from somebody else,… that is it you never did the,…… well I am Okay ! YES ! I am recovering from poisening and brain damage so life is incredable,… and I have been proceeding with progress,.. THANK YOU SO MUCH!
GOLDEN