I think its time to finally admit that its the beginning of the end for file sharing software. In a precedence setting case against Aimster/Madster, a US District Court filed an injunction on October 30th forcing Aimster/Madster to cease all operations until they are able to stop the transfer of copyrighted materials.
Aimster shall immediately disable and prevent any and all access by any person or entity (”User”) to any of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works available on, over, through, or via any website, server, hardware, software, or any other system or service owned or controlled by Aimster , including, if necessary, preventing any and all access to the Aimster System and Service in its entirety, until such time that Aimster implements measures that prevent any and all copying, downloading, distributing, uploading, linking to, or transmitting of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works on, over, through, or via the Aimster System and Service.
... Aimster shall affirmatively monitor and patrol for, and preclude access to, Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works on, over, through, or via the Aimster System and Service, including, without limitation, by employing such technological tools and measures that are reasonably available to carry out such obligations.
I think this is going to be seen as a landmark decision in the battles between the entertainment industry and the file sharing community. This injunction, in effect, is holding Aimster accountable for the files that are being shared using their software, and requiring them to take any “reasonable means” to prevent the download of copyrighted materials.
Currently, the file sharing community is hiding behind the 1984 Sony Betamax decision, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that there were “significant non-infringing uses” of a Video Tape Recorder (VTR). The file sharing community claims that their software also has “significant non-infringing uses”, and is therefor protected by the precedence set by the Betamax case. I have also heard the argument (from the lawyers for Morpheus) that you “don't hold a crowbar manufacturer liable if it is used to break into a house.”
(some of you who have read my earlier works here may be surprised to hear me say this...)
I don't think either of these arguments hold water. In the case of the crowbars, they aren't being marketed as “The Glass Smasher 2000”. The names Aimster/Madster and Grokster are dervied from the name Napster, which is widely famous for its ability to illegally download copyrighted materials. While it may be possible to use the other software within the confines of the law, its name implies that it is best suited for (and marketed as a tool for) illegally downloading copyrighted works. If crowbars did bear the "Glass Smasher 2000" name, I think there would be liability issues because of the implied intended use.
As for the Sony Betamax case... The courts determined that the VTR was being used primarily for the purpose of “time shifting”, in which a user would record a publicly aired program at one time to be viewed at another more convenient time.
Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. (this quote is from the Home Recording Rights Coalition, www.hrrc.com)
There is no parallel in the case of file sharing programs, as there is no “time shifting” occuring, so I don't think the Betamax case is really a fair comparison. Also, the results of the Betamax case revolved around the idea of "fair use". The questions raised here are not about "fair use", but rather, if the software is being used to transport uncopyrighted works (or copyrighted with proper permissions) or not. The courts aren't disallowing the use of Aimster, however, just as they didn't disallow the use of VTRs. What the courts are saying is that Aimster (and I argue the other programs will suffer this same fate) must take “reasonable measures” to ensure that their software is not used for the illegal transfer of copyrighted materials. Considering the history of piracy as a direct result of these file sharing programs, I don't find the ruling at all unreasonable, and I think its going to set a very strong precedence.
“This is another clear-cut legal victory for copyright owners and everyone who wants to see the legitimate online market grow,” said Cary Sherman, President, Recording Industry Association of America. “As Judge Aspen highlighted in his order, the technology to filter copyrighted works exists and should be used. Other unauthorized peer-to-peer networks should take note of this decision. Those other companies involved in illegal trafficking of copyrighted works should also take advantage of these technologies and prevent illegal trading of copyrighted works on their systems.”
"I think its time to finally admit that its the beginning of the end for file sharing software."
BAHAHAHAHAH, you're kidding, right?
Please tell me you're joking.
This ruling means nothing outside the US, and affects no one but Aimster. Just look at the manure the RIAA is trying to pull against the Kazaa guys. What did they do? They sold the company to people outside of US jurisdiction, and they are still running strong.
There will always be places to hide for these people. The far reach of the US isn't going to change that.
Ok, maybe, but stop and read the current bill in the House of Representatives (bill# HR5211) that will give record companies the right to break P2P connections at will, and indirectly gives them the right to destroy the contents of your computer as long as at least one of their copyrighted works is on it. Also, a huge music server in China was recently shutdown. They're playing hardball now. There may be some underground methods to bypass all of this, but once its pulled out of the mainstream, the vast music collections that are out there now will be long, and the filesharing as we know it now will be over.
I definitely agree... the underground will continue through floating websites, etc. I just think its going to drop out of the maintream. The record companies are getting really aggressive, and starting to hold everyone accountable from the software designers to the Internet providers that provide the links. Its going to discourage alot of people from continuing their involvement, and with it, a decrease in mainstream activity.
"Ok, maybe, but stop and read the current bill in the House of Representatives (bill# HR5211) that will give record companies the right to break P2P connections at will, and indirectly gives them the right to destroy the contents of your computer as long as at least one of their copyrighted works is on it."
This will never fly. For one, this law affects no one outside of the US. They'll be in for some serious manure if they try breaking into any computer they feel like. For another, they have to prove I have copyrighted material on my computer. They can't do that unless they already have access, which in my case, will not be granted any time soon. Simply suspecting that I have this material on my computer isn't enough to warrant breaking and entering. If that's the case, then I can break into their servers using the same bogus argument. "Well, they MIGHT have had my copyrighted material on their computers!"
"maybe the p2p programs will be gone, but they will never get rid of mp3s. The "major collectors" will always have a way to exchange them."
Here is my biggest pet peeve. The media has engrained in the mind of people the notion that mp3 == illegal music. Mp3 is simply an audio compression format. It is far from illegal.
Like any file format, it can be used to transport copyrighted material. But that in and of itself does not make it illegal, or even morally dubious. I encode a lot of my own personal recordings into mp3. Things that I write on the fly and need to record quick for future reference. It's like a modern 8-track to me.
" The media has engrained in the mind of people the notion that mp3 == illegal music. Mp3 is simply an audio compression format. It is far from illegal."
Here's a quote directly from the Recording Industry Association of America's website ( at www.riaa.com )
This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right.
Makes sense... While I don't agree with all of their means, its hard to blame them for wanting to protect their own financial interest. Unlike the Betamax case settled in 1984, a major part of the court's ruling was based on the fact that the plaintiffs (Paramount and Disney) could not empirically prove any current or pending damages. The RIAA, on the other hand [i]does[\i] have empirical data supporting their claim of damages caused by P2P programs.
"This will never fly. For one, this law affects no one outside the US. They'll be in for some serious manure if they try breaking into any computer they feel like."
bzzzt wrong answer...
The HR5211 bill expressly states that copyright holders must not "alter delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file..."
BUT... it goes on later to say that they must not "cause economic loss of more than $50 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving [i]computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer to peer file trading network that contains works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106.[\i]
And, as far as not applying to anyone outside of the US, maybe you should stop and take a look at the Berne Convention of 1955, which were the US's first major reciprocal international copyright agreements. (though that mainly addressed audiovisual works (ie movies)) Even more important, though, were the Uruguay Round Agreements of 1996...
For the last 2 decades the United States has been moving towards recognition of copyrights in works of foreign authorship. Through the World Trade Organization (WTO), we have made reciprocal recognition of intellectual rights a matter of policy with our trading partners world wide. It only makes sense that America's leadership position in the exploitation and marketing of creative works can only be sustained with friendly cooperation and mutual respect of individual rights. (from www.r-vcr.com
Translation in case you missed it... If you want to trade with us, you WILL respect our copyright laws, and in return, we will respect yours.
The bottom line is that trading mp3's, no matter how you justify it, is still copyright infringement, and is far outside the scope of "fair use" as defined in the US Copyright Act, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107. And just remember... the ONLY reason we have VCRs in this country at all right now was due to Disney's inability to show evidence of current or pending damages.
...were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm. Given these findings, there is no basis in the Copyright Act upon which respondents can hold petitioners liable for distributing VTR's to the general public.
And it only won by a vote of 5-4 in the US Supreme Court, and then, only after much deliberation. (the original vote was in the other direction, but the term was drawing to a close, and they chose to continue deliberation in the next term.)
Is it illegal to record a Streaming Video from online?
Like... lets say a Music Group releases a Music Video. The Video is available on the official site, but as a Streaming/Real Player File. So, you have to watch the Video Online.
Well, what would happen if someone took a Camera/Web Camera/or some other Video Capturing Device, and recorded the video?
I guess what Im trying to say is, A*Teens recently released their A Perfect Match Video, and you can watch it Online. However, a site (which shall remain nameless) copied the video, with a video capturing device. I meen, you can def. tell they did, because the camera was kinda bouncy, and you can see some of the Real Player controls, etc.
Is it illegal for them to put their logo/Website name etc on this video, and distribute it on their website?
***NOTE*** I'm not trying to be a taddle-tale. I just had a question. I also have an interest in the Legal System :)
Technically, you aren't supposed to copy streaming files to your computer. It falls into a fuzzy shade of grey, however. The Betamax vs Paramount case that went in front of the Supreme Court declared it "ok" to record television programs for the purpose of "time shifting". (record a show to watch later when you have time to watch it.) What you are talking about *sort of* falls into that catagory, except that since it is "on demand" there isn't a need to time shift. Its a shade of grey. Once you re-distribute the file, however, it leaves that shade of grey, and is very definitely in violation of copyright law. (In most countries, too...)
Is it illegal for them to put their logo/Website name etc on this video, and distribute it on their website?
Yes. That is illegal any circumstances... with one exception... and that's if the website has the copyright holder's permission. If the quality is as poor as you are implying, it is unlikely that the copyright owner would approve of its use. Generally, if you are paying the licensing, you are also working from a high quality master recording supplied by the recording company. That ensures the recordings meet the recording company's high standards. That's why the videos on the A-Teens site are of a consistent high quality. They are working from good masters.
And, as far as not applying to anyone outside of the US
[...]
Translation in case you missed it... If you want to trade with us, you WILL respect our copyright laws, and in return, we will respect yours.
Then here's a nice dilemma, eventhough the Netherlands have copyright laws, however if someone in the US hacks into any computer in the Netherlands, they're not breaking any copyright laws, however they are breaking some anti-hacking laws which means they can face upto 4 years in prison.
They just cannot break one law because someone else broke another. Not even when it's legal in their own country, because they hack into a computer that's located in the Netherlands, thus it's jurisdiction of the netherlands, luckily even the US already have some precedence on that issue.
As soon as it happens I think the case will most likely end up with the international court.
doctorrandom said: Technically, you aren't supposed to copy streaming files to your computer. It falls into a fuzzy shade of grey, however. The Betamax vs Paramount case that went in front of the Supreme Court declared it "ok" to record television programs for the purpose of "time shifting". (record a show to watch later when you have time to watch it.) What you are talking about *sort of* falls into that catagory, except that since it is "on demand" there isn't a need to time shift. Its a shade of grey. Once you re-distribute the file, however, it leaves that shade of grey, and is very definitely in violation of copyright law. (In most countries, too...)
[...]
Yes. That is illegal any circumstances... with one exception... and that's if the website has the copyright holder's permission. If the quality is as poor as you are implying, it is unlikely that the copyright owner would approve of its use. Generally, if you are paying the licensing, you are also working from a high quality master recording supplied by the recording company. That ensures the recordings meet the recording company's high standards. That's why the videos on the A-Teens site are of a consistent high quality. They are working from good masters.
There is a copyright on the clip and the music, You can see the clip, you can hear the song, on both there is copyright, it doesn't matter what quality it is.
So if they don't have permission from the copyright holders they are simply breaking the law.
dusty said: There is a copyright on the clip and the music, You can see the clip, you can hear the song, on both there is copyright, it doesn't matter what quality it is.
So if they don't have permission from the copyright holders they are simply breaking the law.
So Planet-A-Teens.com is breaking the law... unless they have information from A-Teens.com or Stockholm Records?
I meen, you can def. tell they recorded the Streaming Video, because you can see the Real Players controles, and what not
I can only speculate on whether they have permission to distribute this file or not... but if I were to take a guess, I'd say probably not. The reasoning is such:
1. Distributing MP3s and movies in .zip format is unprofessional. The files are already compressed, why would you need to compress them with Zip? (This by itself means nothing, however, since it is up to the admin on how a site distributes files, and zip can be handy for downloads.)
2. It appears, as you have said, that the file was not procured from conventional means. (like downloading a copy from the copyright owner, as A-Teens.com has most likely done.) (again, this by itself means nothing...)
3. Generally speaking, you stream videos, that way you limit the users to a single play at a time, and can track the number of times it is played. That's how your royalty payments are determined. Downloading a file, on the other hand, is regarded by the record companies as a "purchased copy". You have unlimited number of plays just as though you purchased a CD (or DVD or whatever). The royalties are much higher on downloads than streams. That is also the mentality supporting why online radio stations pay higher rates than conventional radio stations.
Of course none of this means anything. The only way to know for sure is to ask the copyright owner (in this case, Stockholm Records) or ask the web admin. There is a common misconception out there that as long as you are non-profit organization, you are free from paying royalties, and some will say you are protected under "fair use" laws. That is completely incorrect, however. There are some stipulations in the copyright laws for educational use and sections submitted for criticism (such as movie critics), but even that is extremely limited, and never includes a complete body of work. (ie a whole song.) Basically, the law states that if the sample distributed is large enough to have a negative impact on sales, it violates the copyright laws. Since this is the entire song, and some may just save the file rather than go out and buy the CD, it hurts sales, and would require licensing.
If you really want to make sense out of this, go straight to the source. You can download the entire copyright law here. Its very long, and very dry, but the language is straight forward. Just remember to think like a lawyer, and take everything very literally. Fair use is covered in section 107. (FYI: Sections are identified by that wierd looking double S character.)
I wouldn't bother with A-Teens.com. I don't think they really have any sort of authority in that. They are probably not directly related to Stockholm records. I think they just have their cooperation.
If you wanted to file a complaint, it would best be done through Stockholm Records, or the RIAA. (Recording Industry Association of America.)
My thoughts on this, though? I would be careful. You could open a Pandora's Box that might mark the end of Planet-A_Teens.com. Remember that that is a distinct possibility. Think about what you are looking to accomplish as you move to legal action.
Another approach might be to just send an e-mail to the web admin voicing your concerns, and politely asking for a response. If you they blow you off or treat you rudely, then you can move on to the next level. It may be an amateur site, and the admin may just not know any better, or may not really understand the copyright laws, and how they apply to online distribution. As I said, many think that copyright laws only apply if there is profit involved. Its also possible that they do in fact have permission. A letter to the admin may show that to be the case.
If after exhausting all other possibilities, you decide to report this, you can go to the RIAA's site. They have this page just for doing so.
Jeremy said: [...]
So Planet-A-Teens.com is breaking the law... unless they have information from A-Teens.com or Stockholm Records?
By redistributing they are breaking the law (if they don't have permission). It wouldn't matter if the download is still available or not on the other site, they redistribute, they should pay royalties and have permission for it.
You can find the site 
