The article says:

In one ruling, it said that a trial against such file-sharing services as Grokster may proceed, given that those services' primary use is the illegal distribution of music, movies and other digital content.

My understanding is that the holding doesn't go to primary use but to how the company holds its products out for use. That was how the ct. distinguished the VCR case from this one. It isn't primary use - it's the fact that Groakster was essentially advertising its product as a way to (illegally) download copyrighted materials.

Quote

The other decision, which was also reported on by Ms. Yen, was a 6-3 ruling that keeps cable broadband lines from being considered in the same light as phone lines, which must be shared for DSL, long distance and local calling, and other services. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said that final say in the matter should lie with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which decided in March 2002 to label cable lines an "information service" different from phone lines.

It means that everyone better prepare for higher broadband rates.

What's important here is not that a million teens are going to be further hampered in their efforts to download the newest Britney song and Herbie movie. What's important is that our judicial system has strongly sided with the forces of copyright exploitation and anti-innovation. The court has basically said that corporations' right to profit trumps everything else.

It's a pretty lousy day.

I don't understand why Cable doesn't have to play by the same rules as phone, either in your country or mine.

Here in Canada, the Incumbent phone companies are regulated by the CRTC about how much they can charge for VOIP access, and the newcomers (including Rogers, a very huge cable company) are not regulated for price. It's a huge discrepancy. So, Rogers, which just acquired Call-Net (that's Sprint in Canada) now can rock the boat pretty hard in Canada playing by different rules.

I don't understand why Cable doesn't have to play by the same rules as phone, either in your country or mine.

Here in Canada, the Incumbent phone companies are regulated by the CRTC about how much they can charge for VOIP access, and the newcomers (including Rogers, a very huge cable company) are not regulated for price. It's a huge discrepancy. So, Rogers, which just acquired Call-Net (that's Sprint in Canada) now can rock the boat pretty hard in Canada playing by different rules.

Quote

fartheststar wrote:
I don't understand why Cable doesn't have to play by the same rules as phone, either in your country or mine.

My son-in-law is a guitar player in a punk rock band. Been working that for years, played around the world in concerts and they have a stack of CDs out.

While they were with a "major" for a while they have also done indie work and the guitar man now has his own studio.

The fact is that his income has been impacted by P2P. The decision will not mean anything to him now, but it will help a lot of bands that are with indies, especially since the iTunes Store is giving indies a chance on their site.

It's about time this decision was made. It's a victory for everyone interested in the development of the legal distribution of music via of the Internet.

Contrary to hurting iPod sales as some have suggested, moving the iPod into the relam of a device used for the enjoyment of music legally obtained will spur sales among members of older demographics IMHO.

Furter, with the iTMS holding the #1 spot among legal services, it can only increase sales volume as the resulting law suits begin to put an end to rampant criminal behavior on the part of these services and those who choose to distribute music outside the law.

From what I understand the cable companies installed the system with their own money. Phone companies use common carrier system that has public money in it. Probably more complicated than that, but I remember something along those lines dicussed on a business news show.

Quote

fartheststar wrote:
I don't understand why Cable doesn't have to play by the same rules as phone, either in your country or mine.

Here in Canada, the Incumbent phone companies are regulated by the CRTC about how much they can charge for VOIP access, and the newcomers (including Rogers, a very huge cable company) are not regulated for price. It's a huge discrepancy. So, Rogers, which just acquired Call-Net (that's Sprint in Canada) now can rock the boat pretty hard in Canada playing by different rules.

Justice David H. Souter wrote: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,"

Apple doesn't promote copyright infringement with the iPod/iTunes combo; in fact, they deter it: (from apple.com/ipod/specs.html)
"iPod and iTunes are for legal or rightholder-authorized copying only. Don’t steal music."

They warn you not to steal music. I would say that's plenty to deter infringement.

We really need to get past the notion that bands make money off CD sales. Unless YOU own the label, it's just not the case.

I've been doing this for 15 years. I have 6 CDs commerically produced and distributed that I wrote and performed. I've made exactly nothing on them (I made a lot more doing the artwork, actually). In fact, the CD one of my groups put out last year, my band-mate and friend owns the label. I made nothing. He made nothing. If anybody ever makes a penny on it, it'll be him, but it's still not likely. And if he does make any money, it'll go toward re-pressing the disc.

I'm more likely to believe that a band's income is positively affected by P2P. They were never going to make any money off the CD anyway, but the exposure might get folks to their shows.

It's a well-worn argument that file-sharing advocates continue to use, but only because it's true.*

*For the record I don't condone copyright violation - for music or any other media - however, I am all for reasonable laws and frankly, I think selling CDs is a dead practice. Distribute digitally, and give away content liberally. It's the model of the future. The days of record companies getting rich off naive young bands is over (soon).

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
The fact is that his income has been impacted by P2P. The decision will not mean anything to him now, but it will help a lot of bands that are with indies, especially since the iTunes Store is giving indies a chance on their site.

(Dang it. I got logged off)

We really need to get past the notion that bands make money off CD sales. Unless YOU own the label, it's just not the case.

I've been doing this for 15 years. I have 6 CDs commerically produced and distributed that I wrote and performed. I've made exactly nothing on them (I made a lot more doing the artwork, actually). In fact, the CD one of my groups put out last year, my band-mate and friend owns the label. I made nothing. He made nothing. If anybody ever makes a penny on it, it'll be him, but it's still not likely. And if he does make any money, it'll go toward re-pressing the disc.

I'm more likely to believe that a band's income is positively affected by P2P. They were never going to make any money off the CD anyway, but the exposure might get folks to their shows.

It's a well-worn argument that file-sharing advocates continue to use, but only because it's true.*

*For the record I don't condone copyright violation - for music or any other media - however, I am all for reasonable laws and frankly, I think selling CDs is a dead practice. Distribute digitally, and give away content liberally. It's the model of the future. The days of record companies getting rich off naive young bands is over (soon).

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
My son-in-law is a guitar player in a punk rock band. Been working that for years, played around the world in concerts and they have a stack of CDs out.

While they were with a "major" for a while they have also done indie work and the guitar man now has his own studio.

The fact is that his income has been impacted by P2P. The decision will not mean anything to him now, but it will help a lot of bands that are with indies, especially since the iTunes Store is giving indies a chance on their site.

well, just because the P2P sites can't give away your music, you still can. And distribute it. Free. You don't ever have to sign with a label. Just give it away. You still won't make any money. But your art will be out there free of charge. And nobody will be making a cent on it.

I forgot to mention in my ramble...er, post... I practice what I preach. I do actually give all my recordings away.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
well, just because the P2P sites can't give away your music, you still can. And distribute it. Free. You don't ever have to sign with a label. Just give it away. You still won't make any money. But your art will be out there free of charge. And nobody will be making a cent on it.

Read it and weep, iPod users:

"(d) On the record presented, respondentsí unlawful objective is un-
mistakable. The classic instance of inducement is by advertisement
or solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others
to commit violations."

Uh, like "rip, mix, burn, perhaps?"

" MGM argues persuasively that such a message
is shown here. Three features of the evidence of intent are particu-
larly notable. First, each of the respondents showed itself to be aim-
ing to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement,
the market comprising former Napster users."

People with stacks of mp3 files.... what kind of device would appeal to them, do you think?

" Respondentsí efforts to
supply services to former Napster users indicate a principal, if not
exclusive, intent to bring about infringement. Second, neither re-
spondent attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to
diminish the infringing activity using their software."

Unlike players which only play watermarked or locked content.

" While the
Ninth Circuit treated that failure as irrelevant because respondents
lacked an independent duty to monitor their usersí activity, this evi-
dence underscores their intentional facilitation of their usersí in-
fringement."

Clearly, all music players should monitor users' activity and prevent illegal/unlicensed use.

" Third, respondents make money by selling advertising
space, then by directing ads to the screens of computers employing
their software. The more their software is used, the more ads are
sent out and the greater the advertising revenue. Since the extent of
the softwareís use determines the gain to the distributors, the com-
mercial sense of their enterprise turns on high-volume use, which the
record shows is infringing."

Let's do the math. 10,000 songs * $.99/song = $9,999 to fill an iPod with legal music. Is the high-volume use legal or infringing?

" This evidence alone would not justify an
inference of unlawful intent, but its import is clear in the entire re-
cordís context. Pp. 20ñ23.
"

Hasta la vista, baby.

Isn't this rather like the Courts stating ' the murderer John Smith should be brought to Court to face a charge of murder'.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Read it and weep, iPod users:

"(d) On the record presented, respondentsí unlawful objective is un-
mistakable. The classic instance of inducement is by advertisement
or solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others
to commit violations."

Uh, like "rip, mix, burn, perhaps?"