Quotes Of The Week
"The court's decision was unanimous." – EFF on P2P appeal victory
"Attacks from within your company are more likely than breaches by an outside hacker." - Oliver Kaven, journalist
"I didn't want to look like the person who was going with anything the [record] label was sending me." - Matthew Perpetua, MP3 blogger
"I know we're dealing in relatively uncharted territory here, but I'd expect a slightly different level of participation [from the labels]. We're not an AOL chat room." - Mark Willett, MP3 blogger
"Their reaction to technology was one of abject fear because after 50 years with a comfortable stranglehold on the music business from top to bottom, suddenly something had come along which they thought might take it all away." - Hooman Majd, Island Records executive
"Students say they can download in as little as half an hour large video files that might take a day or longer to obtain over traditional file-sharing networks." - John Borland, journalist
"It’s certainly not a threat to record shops as we’ve found that downloading and file-sharing are actually encouraging people to buy more albums than ever before." - Simon Dornan, Virgin Music store executive
It doesn’t get any better
EFF Scores Landmark Win for P2P
Press Release
Ninth Circuit Declares Grokster, Morpheus Not Liable for Infringement
California - Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a crucial
decision (PDF) in support of technology innovators by declaring that distributors of the peer-to-peer software Grokster and Morpheus cannot be held liable for the infringing activities of their users. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued on behalf of Streamcast, the creator of the Morpheus software, in a case that pitted dozens of entertainment conglomerates against two small software companies.
The Ninth Circuit decision is based in part on the fact that P2P networks have significant non-infringing uses, and that they can help artists earn money. The ruling is similar to the Supreme Court's decision in the 1984 Betamax case, which determined that Sony was not liable for copyright violations by users of the Betamax VCR.
"Today's ruling will ultimately be viewed as a victory for copyright owners. As the court recognized today, the entertainment industry has been fighting new technologies for a century, only to learn again and again that these new technologies create new markets and opportunities," said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "There is no reason to think that file sharing will be any different."
The court's decision was unanimous.
"This is a victory for innovators of all stripes," added von Lohmann. "The court's ruling makes it clear that innovators need not beg permission from record labels and Hollywood before they deploy exciting new technologies."
It is likely that the entertainment companies will appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_08.php#001833
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Danger Will Robinson!!!
Powerful Senators Seek To Punish P2P Developers
Brooks Boliek
A group of Senate leaders is charging the country's highest-ranking copyright official with rewriting legislation designed to punish P2P operators who entice people to illegally distribute copyrighted works.
In a letter signed by four top-ranking senators, the lawmakers ask Register of Copyrights Mary Beth Peters to schedule high-level meetings with copyright owners such as the record companies and movie studios, people who run peer-to-peer networks and technology companies in an effort to build a consensus for the legislation.
Senate Republican leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Democratic leader Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; and the committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., signed the letter seeking Peters' assistance with the legislation.
All four senators have co-authored the controversial Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act, which allows creative artists and copyright holders to sue companies that profit from encouraging the public to commit copyright piracy.
During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the legislation came under fire from technology companies and consumer electronics manufacturers for going too far. Consumer Electronics Assn. CEO Gary Shapiro called it a "deadly new tool" that would put a "massive liability bull's-eye" on technology companies.
At the time, Peters said she thought the bill "would be a positive addition to the copyright law."
Since then, the senators have decided to take a second look at the legislation, hoping to build support for a modified version of the bill.
"We do recognize, however, that some technology companies are concerned that claims for intentional inducement of infringement might be misused frivolously against entities who distribute legitimate copying devices or programs such as computers, CD burners, personal video recorders, e-mail services, etc.," the senators wrote. "We are open to any constructive input on how Congress can best frame a technology-neutral law directed at a small set of bad actors while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous litigation."
While the senators were striking a more conciliatory note, they appeared to be unwilling to drop their controversial stance on "secondary liability" -- the legal concept that puts P2P operators at risk under the bill.
"There is little dispute that entities intentionally encouraging and promoting widespread infringement should be held secondarily liable for the infringement they intend to induce," they wrote. "The imposition of such liability is particularly appropriate given that much file-sharing software automates the redistribution of infringing files so effectively that people making hundreds of works available for distribution to millions of persons around the globe can testify that they had no idea that they were engaged in the massive, global redistribution of those protected works."
Nevertheless, the senators tell Peters that "we remain open to other approaches" asking her "to attempt to achieve consensus proposals" and deliver them to the senators by Sept. 7.
Senate aides said the letter doesn't mean that the senators have given up on their bill, although final passage this year is unlikely given that it is an election year and Congress has much unfinished work left to do.
"This was a step contemplated from the beginning," one aide said. "It's a another step toward getting a bill through Congress."
Consumer Electronics Assn. officials said they were pleased that the lawmakers decided to open up the process.
"All we've ever asked for is for this to be a fair and open process," CEA spokesman Jeff Joseph said. "From that perspective, this is a great development."
But questions remain about how fair the process will be, Joseph said.
"We are a bit concerned about the role Peters will play," he said. "She's already stated in the hearing that she doesn't believe in the principles of the Betamax decision."
In the Betamax case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the VCR did not infringe on copyrights because it has other legitimate uses like shifting the time a television program can be viewed.
RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol said he was encouraged by the senators' decision, viewing it as a sign that the lawmakers weren't going to let the measure languish.
"This is an important sign that the sponsors understand the urgency of moving forward," he said. "Paralysis is not an option. We remain eager to work on a common-sense compromise that fulfills the ultimate objective of targeting bad actors who are jeopardizing the future of music."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000613538