RealNetworks ad campaign
p2pnet.net News:- RealNetworks is to launch a newspaper campaign using the Grokster v MGM case to play up its own “legitimate” music sharing service, Rhapsody 25, launched a few months ago, says Brandweek.com.
The implication is that Grokster is illegal.
It isn’t.
The US Supreme Court did, however, rule that the owners of p2p file-sharing applications such as Grokster can be held liable if users swap copyrighted material without permission.
“RealNetworks’ campaign, which featured full-page ads running in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and USA Today, will emphasize the fact that Rhapsody offers 25 free music files each month without the worry of infringing on anyone’s rights,” says the story, adding:
“RealNetworks will spend an undisclosed sum on the campaign, which was created by Publicis, Seattle, and targets music lovers.
“The company also plans to deploy an ‘aggressive’ search-term campaign that capitalizes on the ruling, which places the burden of copyright responsibility squarely on creators of music download tools …”
RealNetworks is distinguished by the frequency with which serious security flaws that open users to hack attacks are found in its software.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Brandweek.com – RealNetworks Launches Campaign That Leverages Grokster Ruling , June 29, 2005
security flaws – RealNetworks danger warning, p2pnet, June 24, 2005
July 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
They can’t be held liable unless they “induce” their users to commit the infringement in the first place. Let’s be more clear about what “induce” means:
From Dictionary.com:
1. To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion. See Synonyms at persuade.
2. To bring about or stimulate the occurrence of; cause: a drug used to induce labor.
In both versions of the definition, the common element is “stimulate, influence, persuade.” Making software that allows the publishing of non-RIAA music is not illegal, nor is offering it out to people. If those people use that software to an illegal end, the software or network provider themselves are not liable for the infringement. If the provider is hinting at their users directly that they should share protected works, they are liable because they are persuading, influencing, or stimulating their users intentionally to commit a violation of these protections that they implicitly agreed to by purchasing the media under copyright law in the first place. It is the same as directly and intentionally convincing someone to commit suicide, rob a bank, kill someone, slash someone’s tires, etc. to *push* the violation. If you don’t push it, you aren’t liable. Your users must take personal responsibility for their law-breaking unless you told them to do it.
I wish people would stop misinterpreting this. This decision merely reflects the interests of the laws currently on the books. The copyright terms should be modified so they last no longer than 70 years and can’t be passed on to “the estate of…” but that is an entirely different monster.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:39 pm
This campaign will most likely backfire on RealNetworks, people are much smarter than they think.
July 1st, 2005 at 8:36 pm
no they’re not
July 1st, 2005 at 11:13 pm
This sort of goes hand in hand with the likes of AOL. Since most people know that it is bloated, filled with spyware, and robs you of so much bandwidth it isn’t a desirable software to have. Instead they have to resort to getting customers in other ways. One of AOL’s typical things is if you have a complaint or just want to get rid of it, then they will offer either reduced service charges or none at all in hopes you will forget to cancel with that runs out and they can continue to charge your credit card.
Those sort of underhanded practices are what makes the software even more undesirable. It is no different with Real Network. This sort of underhandedness always winds up coming back to haunt them at a later date. No one in their right mind wants DRM infested songs. No one wants a software that is hack bait and is often hit. They are trying their best to come up with something that counteracts that bad publicity and are having to really stretch it to do so. That they come out this way only shows their desperation.