Posted on 03/29/2005 9:21:06 AM PST by TommyDale
WASHINGTON - When the Supreme Court justices were growing up, swapping music meant exchanging vinyl records. And sharing a movie involved walking someone to the cinema.
Today many of the latest hit songs and movies are a few mouse clicks away on the Internet, and those same justices are being asked to settle a multibillion-dollar dispute about how such items are shared.
Entertainment companies want the court to let them sue the manufacturers of file-sharing software that allows computer users to download music and movies from each other's computers. The companies say such downloads violate copyright protections and amount to stealing.
Lower courts have sided with the software makers, Grokster Inc. and StreamCast Networks, which say their technology should be looked at no differently than a videocassette recorder.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday and will issue a decision before July.
How the justices rule could redefine how consumers can watch television shows and films and listen to songs that increasingly are delivered in digital formats. Supporters of file-sharing technology say a ruling against the software companies could effectively give the entertainment industry a legal veto over up-and-coming gadgets; they fear the threat of expensive lawsuits could hamper development of new devices.
The case has star power on both sides.
Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and other musicians are backing the major recording labels, saying their livelihoods are threatened if millions of people can obtain their songs for nothing.
About 20 independent recording artists, including musician and producer Brian Eno, rockers Heart and rapper-activist Chuck D, support the file-sharing technology. They say it allows greater distribution of their music and limits the power of huge record companies.
Regardless of the outcome, it still won't be legal to download copyrighted materials over the Internet without permission, though tens of millions of computer users do so each day. And any ruling won't affect thousands of copyright lawsuits filed individually against Internet users caught sharing music and movies online.
But a victory for the entertainment companies would allow lawsuits that could drive companies that make file-sharing software out of business. It also would effectively overturn rules that have governed technology companies for more than two decades: Manufacturers can't be sued for copyright violations committed by customers using their products illegally.
Dan Glickman, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said the film industry will keep trying to get consumers to buy legal digital movies. "Consumers want a legal, hassle-free, reasonable-cost way to get their products online," he said in an interview Monday with editors from The Associated Press.
Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, told the AP editors: "We are doing all the things we should be doing to move into this digital age. That is true no matter what the outcome" of the case being heard Tuesday.
The entertainment companies face an uphill battle with the high court.
The trial judge and a U.S. appeals court quoted the Supreme Court in ruling the same file-sharing software millions of people use to steal music and movies also can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They reasoned that gave the software's manufacturers protection from copyright lawsuits based on acts by their customers.
In his April 2003 ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of Los Angeles compared Grokster's software to copying machines, which can be used to make both legal and illegal copies.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed, praising the trial judge for his "well reasoned analysis" and warning against the "unwise" expansion of copyright laws.
The trial court and appeals court based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court "Betamax" case. The justices ruled Sony Corp. couldn't be sued for copyright infringement if some customers used their VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.
Entertainment companies argue the file-sharing companies should not have blanket protection from copyright lawsuits, especially when they know about and profit from wide-scale piracy. Court documents said some file-sharing software companies earned millions of dollars annually from advertisements built into their software, and ad revenues climb as more people use the software.
Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general hired by the entertainment companies, said the threshold for liability "is so high that basically if there's any conceivable legitimate use of the system it passes the test. That standard has got to be rejected."
Olson's former law firm represented Sony in the 1984 case.
The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.
I can assure you that not everyone loves the what the music industry would have you believe. I wouldn't buy anything on the market right now, simple as that, unless I had sampled it first.
Clearly, there are so few "legitimate uses" for guns that they should be banned. It is dangerous to let people have the tools to commit crime. Keeping the tools of crime of of the hands of people who are clearly too irresponsible to handle them is the best chance we have to limit crime.
A few months ago, some articles supported the latter -- that downloads actually seemed to have increased sales. Of course, the 'industry' doesn't want that circulated.
What is the difference than downloading a song, for example, than listening to it on an internet radio and recording it to the hard drive?
Copyright used to be for the purpose of restricting the resale or profiting from 'theft' of a copyrighted work. It has never had anything to do with copying for personal use. How to libraries get away with providing books to multiples of readers, for example?
The industry already get a hidden perk on the sales of blank recording cassettes and VHS cassettes and the equipment that record them. In all probability, the court will extend that to CD-R's and DVD-R's and the recording hardware. That way, the industry will get a few cents from each blank and the cost of blanks will increase slightly.
I can see it both ways on music, which is hypocritical of me, I admit. I've worked in book publishing all my life and know how important those copyright safeguards are to authors, who work for at least a year and often much longer just to finish one book. They rely on royalties to compensate them for their time, which may take more years. Few writers write bestselling books that bring in top dollar.
In the music business, one might argue that the "stars" already make enough money (how much is enough?), but what about all the less famous artists? For instance, what about an opera singer who's devoted years of his life and every cent he could put together for lessons to perfect his highly trained voice? He may not be Pavarotti, nor make big bucks, but should he have to drive a cab to feed his children while people freely download his one CD? If the recording company doesn't make money on his first CD, you can be sure there won't be a second.
In the end, that is what this case is ultimately about.
They whine about dollars and cents but it is all about power.
I don't see any difference in what the RIAA is doing to the music industry as Major League Baseball was doing before Free Agency. When the market controls an industry, it thrives. When the industry controls what consumers get, it withers. The RIAA need only look in the mirror (and in their own wallets) to find fault for low sales. If they sold the CDs at the fair market price of around $7 to $8, they would see a huge increase in sales. Up to now, they are ripping us off. When vinyl LP albums sold in stores for $5.99 on a list price of $8.98, it was fair. But it actually costs less to produce a CD now than it used to cost for a vinyl LP, yet they continue to charge twice to three times as much as the old vinyl.
Not hypocritical, just thoughtful.
I am one of those authors you mentioned. Whenever this topic has come up before, I have asked how my rights will be protected if unlimited downloading is allowed. Why would anyone pay for a book if he can get it free? I have yet to hear a good answer from the "Information wants to be free" folks.
RIAA is an anomaly. Had The burnable CD and Internet been invented before Radio and records,there would have been no chance for the media monopolies to form in the first place. RIAA is trying to put a finger in the Hoover Dam, it isn't going to work.
All of copyright law should be rewritten; it is a license to stifle creativity and an entitlement to mediocrity.
If books can be freely downloaded, why in the world would a publishing company pay decent advances, even to bestselling authors? That advance money is all-important, as it might be the entirety of what an author makes on his/her book. I was in a big Barnes & Noble yesterday, place was almost deserted, half of the "bookshelves" were filled with other stuff. It's such a pity!
Good luck to you, Logophile.
You can kiss the trillion dollar tech market and the internet goodbye if Hollywood get it's way.
Nobody is stealing the Dixie Chicks music because nobody wants to hear them anbyway.
Books have been available for free for years -- at the public library. One the occasions when I do buy one instead of checking it out from the library, I pass it on to family and friends when I have finished reading it.
Thanks.
It will be ineresting to see if anyone posting to this thread can answer my question.
I'm a published author too. Take a look at Seth Godin's works. Freely distributed ebook format. People (including me) still buy the dead tree versions of Godin's books after looking at the ebooks. Co-authoring a book right now that will have a free ebook version. The money is in the upsell to additional products and services (seminars/videos, etc.), not the books. Note that this works for nonfiction. I have done no research on fiction. I suspect it is a whole different ballgame.
Copyright law should be enforced, but it also needs to be reformed. The current expiration time is far too long. The idea that books and music of the 1920s-1940s are not yet public domain is absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.