News and Reviews....

Legal Victory for File Sharing .......   August  2004

        At first I couldn't believe it. Not that I condone file sharing one way or the other. But, on Friday August 20, 2004 it was announced in the L.A. Times, that during the prior day, three years after it effectively shut down Napster for music piracy, a federal appeals court blessed a new generation of online file-sharing networks and scolded the entertainment industry for trying to stretch copyright law to thwart innovation.

    The decision was made by a three-judge panel belonging to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was deemed a defeat for Major record labels and Hollywood studios. 

    It was a victory for developers of new, rapidly evolving technologies that change the way people get there entertainment as well as other mediums.

    The battle is now likely to shift to Washington. Congress is considering a bill that would crack down on companies that develop and sell software that enables the copying of music, movies and games over the internet.

    An even bigger issue is that if the entertainment industry appeals the decision, the US Supreme Court could revisit the landmark SONY BETAMAX ruling, which protects from copyright lawsuits, products that have substantial legitimate uses.

    The 9th Circuit panel relied on that 1984 ruling in unanimously affirming a lower-court decision issued last year that the companies behind the Grokster and Morpheus networks don't violate copyright law, even thought many of the people who use the networks do.

    It seams the same appeals court came to a different conclusion about Napster in 2001, holding the pioneering file-sharing service responsible for its users' illegal activity because its central computers tracked all the songs available for downloading.

    Today's filing-sharing networks have no central computers. The companies behind such peer to peer systems cannot even monitor users, let alone rein them in. This comment was made by Judge Sidney R. Thomas in his opinion for the appeal panel.

    Thomas suggested that the entertainment industry would adapt to file sharing in the way movie studios did after losing the Betamax case, which established the right of television viewers to record shows at home. In fact, home video sales and rentals now generate more revenue than cinema box-office receipts.

    "The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms," Thomas wrote. "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 personal computer, a karaoke machine or an MP3 player."

In Judge Thomas' view the case was just the latest in a series of battles between entertainment companies and new technologies. "Every new means of reproducing sound has struck a dissonant chord with musical copyright owners," He wrote.

Comment .....   And so the fight or beat goes on. Big industry against viewer and user. Can they really be held for using the toys and inventions of the day. Do we need to re-think the methods of marketing and sales in the entertainment industry ? The RIAA has sued nearly 4000 file sharers. 

    I sympathize with the music, script and book writers and performers and others who create the initial magic of nothing to something. 

    There are other issues pending such as the Induce Act which is a back door approach in saying that if you induce a user (by whatever means ?) to violate copyright laws it is a federal crime. Oh Boy Here We Go Again.

If you liked this article, please let us know by filling in a comment on our email page.