AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by franc11s
Lawsuit thrown out against song swapping services.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../tech_music_dc
From my reading of the court documents, this decision was based upon two factors that probably can't be applied to ISS.


First, there is the issue of "substantial non-infringing uses". Grokster/Streamcast can be and are used to distribute more than copyrighted material - it is no harder to send a public domain file than to send a "pirated" file. ISS _can_ distribute non-copyrighted material (i.e. home videos transferred to the replay), but given the ReplayTV's primary function of recording copyrighted material and the difficulty in providing non-copyrighted material for sharing, I don't see it as a "substantial" non-infringing use.


Second, Grokster/Streamcast do not provide "equipment or facilities" for the copyright infringement. Napster provided server that HAD to be included in the transaction, and therefor they directly supported and had the ability to prevent the copyright infringement. Grokster/Streamcast just provide software. The clients running to software provide the "equipment or facilities" for copyright infringement. Once again, ReplayTV's IIS feature requires the Replay servers to facilitate the exchange, and Replay has the ability to prevent the copyright infringement.


This decision will have little to no effect on the ISS suit should it be refiled against D&M. On the other hand, it is GREAT news in that a court finally stood up for the right side against the entertainment industry, based upon arguments firmly rooted in reality, instead of "spin".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by scochran666
Once again, ReplayTV's IIS feature requires the Replay servers to facilitate the exchange, and Replay has the ability to prevent the copyright infringement.
I think your incorrect in that assumption about Replay's servers facilitating the exchange. Napster's servers stored everyone's file lists on their servers. Replay's servers don't do that. All they provide is an IP address for the other Replays. Show traffic doesn't flow through Replay's servers.


If we follow your logic, all ISP's are liable for file sharing since they provide ip addresses and even carry the traffic as well. That's already mostly been settled, and ISP's aren't responsible for usage of their service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by joesc1
I think your incorrect in that assumption about Replay's servers facilitating the exchange. Napster's servers stored everyone's file lists on their servers. Replay's servers don't do that. All they provide is an IP address for the other Replays. Show traffic doesn't flow through Replay's servers.
Actually, ReplayTV servers do contain a list of shows on users units if they use the MyReplayTV service. Of course, that's not involved with ISS (although that is how PlanetReplay used to work).


As far as the Internet Serial Number to IP conversion that ReplayTV's servers handles... it'd be hard to claim that aiding copyright infringment since then almost any DHCP or router on the internet could be accused of doing the same thing. I sometimes wished that SB would have just allowed an IP address to be entered directly instead of relying on their servers to do the lookup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Hey -- there's an idea... a gnutella-like addition to the replay software.


Of course, there'd have to be a lot more replays for it to work correctly....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
And what do you think would piss of the networks more? That or IVS in its current form?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by joesc1
I think your incorrect in that assumption about Replay's servers facilitating the exchange. Napster's servers stored everyone's file lists on their servers. Replay's servers don't do that. All they provide is an IP address for the other Replays. Show traffic doesn't flow through Replay's servers.


If we follow your logic, all ISP's are liable for file sharing since they provide ip addresses and even carry the traffic as well. That's already mostly been settled, and ISP's aren't responsible for usage of their service.
If you read the decision, one of the tests boils down to this: Shut down the Napster servers, and no exchanges take place. Shut down Grokster's or Streamcast's servers, and there is no effect. Thus, Napster provided facilities necessary for the data transfer, Grokster/Streamcast doesn't. If you turn off Replay's servers, ISS dies.


Also, there was the issue of Napster's ability to monitor and prevent the exchange if it "knew" that the files were infringing. Grokster/Streamcast can't, because they aren't involved. Replay CAN, since you have to "ask" them first, before anything else happens.


Finally, I think you would be hard pressed to convince a judge that ISS has "substantial" non-infringing use. 99.999% of what is recorded on Replays is copyrighted material. Getting non-copyrighted material onto the Replay is a chore.


Read the decision, not what people are saying about it, before you make judgments on what it does and does not mean.


Don't misunderstand me - I think ISS is great. I think it _should_ be legal. But this decision does nothing to further the ISS cause, and the chances of sucessfully pursuing the case to the end (Supreme Court) are slim at best.


And the second that the Supremes declare it legal, the entertainment industry will just buy some votes, bribe a clerk, or do whatever it takes to slip a new law in that makes it not legal. If you don't believe me, check out the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, where some nameless clerk added 4 words that turned recording artists into "work for hire" employees, who do not own the fruits of their creativity. This language was inserted by a CLERK, not a Senator or Representative, while the bill was in conference.


There was a huge uproar, and the RIAA reluctantly worked with the artists to reverse it, but after a bit of Googling, I still can't confirm that this language has been struck. That's the power of back-room machinations by the entertainment industry. Fear it.

http://www.dpeaflcio.org/policy/fact...orkforhire.htm


edit: Finally found information confirming the repeal of that amendment. However, it took a LOT of influential and wealthy artists to beat the RIAA into submission on that one. Who will be standing up to protect ISS? What's our power base? Is there anyone here who _really_ believes that D&M or it's customers have a fart's chance in a tornado of winning this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
I just posted the following in a similar thread ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=252622 ), but I'm reposting the guts of it here so that we can confine discussion about the new decision to a single thread:




I've been looking at your last post, schochran, where you say:


"Don't misunderstand me - I think ISS is great. I think it _should_ be legal. But this decision does nothing to further the ISS cause, and the chances of sucessfully pursuing the case to the end (Supreme Court) are slim at best."


I continue to think that kind of attitude is bizarre (there's that word again). Is the law murky on these topics? Of course. That's exactly why statements asserting that chances of sucess are 'slim at best' make absolutely no sense.


On the substance, you claim in the other thread that the new decision is irrelevant since in that case the technology has substantial noninfringing uses while you say that ISS does not (I gather because everything we record over the air or from cable is copyrighted). But you seem utterly blind to the argument that so many of us have been making (professionals as well as layman) that sharing an isolated over the air show with a specific person who could have recorded it himself but inadvertently missed it is not a copyright infringement -- it is part of fair use. Can reasonable people disagree with that point? Yup. But that does not make it a slam dunk loser! Why pretend that it is?


I am not one that argues that a company should be permitted to make things that have no legitimate use, but I think the vast majority of the replay users that have ever used ISS (a small number to begin with) use it in a responsible fashion that we believe we are in the right in doing. For example I would never -- never -- share a show with someone who says 'I don't get HBO so could someone send me show X'. I think that would be wrong, and I don't do it. But I am comfortable as a moral matter that if someone says "Hey, I missed last night's 60 Minutes on CBS, could you please send it to me?" I can comply with that request.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by asinshesq
"Don't misunderstand me - I think ISS is great. I think it _should_ be legal. But this decision does nothing to further the ISS cause, and the chances of sucessfully pursuing the case to the end (Supreme Court) are slim at best."


I continue to think that kind of attitude is bizarre (there's that word again). Is the law murky on these topics? Of course. That's exactly why statements asserting that chances of sucess are 'slim at best' make absolutely no sense.
Nothing bizare about it. I beleive ISS should be legal. I also believe that, one way or another, it will be litigated into non-existance. Nothing contradictory there at all.

Quote:
On the substance, you claim in the other thread that the new decision is irrelevant since in that case the technology has substantial noninfringing uses while you say that ISS does not (I gather because everything we record over the air or from cable is copyrighted). But you seem utterly blind to the argument that so many of us have been making (professionals as well as layman) that sharing an isolated over the air show with a specific person who could have recorded it himself but inadvertently missed it is not a copyright infringement -- it is part of fair use. Can reasonable people disagree with that point? Yup. But that does not make it a slam dunk loser! Why pretend that it is?
I never said "slam dunk". Heck, it may even win in some levels of the legal process. But the end result will be the entertainment industry focusing all of it's might on squashing it, even if it takes buying some Senators.


As to my "utter blindness", how can you be "utterly blind" to the fact that the shows _are_ copyrighted, the stations _have_ paid substantial sums of money for the right to broadcast them, and these same interests _will_ choose to litigate/legislate this matter until it is closed?


Attack me all you want (and you did - "attitude is bizarre", "utterly blind"), but it doesn't change the base facts involved. Deal with the realities of what will and will not be allowed, as opposed to what we want to be allowed. It is NOT your opinion, my opinion, or even ultimately D&M's opinion about the legality of ISS that matters here. Either D&M will pull it as a feature, or it WILL go through the courts until the entertainment industry wins. And if the industry loses, in comes the bought-and-paid-for congress to clear things up.


That's the way life works in this "democracy".

Quote:
I am not one that argues that a company should be permitted to make things that have no legitimate use, but I think the vast majority of the replay users that have ever used ISS (a small number to begin with) use it in a responsible fashion that we believe we are in the right in doing. For example I would never -- never -- share a show with someone who says 'I don't get HBO so could someone send me show X'. I think that would be wrong, and I don't do it. But I am comfortable as a moral matter that if someone says "Hey, I missed last night's 60 Minutes on CBS, could you please send it to me?" I can comply with that request.
I agree - on a moral level, there is nothing wrong with ISS. On a practical, real world, day-to-day level there is nothing wrong with ISS. In my opinion it should be permitted. But, ultimately, I don't believe it will be. Not because of right or wrong, but because of control and money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by scochran666
Nothing bizare about it. I beleive ISS should be legal. I also believe that, one way or another, it will be litigated into non-existance.... Nothing contradictory there at all....Deal with the realities of what will and will not be allowed, as opposed to what we want to be allowed. It is NOT your opinion, my opinion, or even ultimately D&M's opinion about the legality of ISS that matters here....I agree - on a moral level, there is nothing wrong with ISS. On a practical, real world, day-to-day level there is nothing wrong with ISS. In my opinion it should be permitted. But, ultimately, I don't believe it will be. Not because of right or wrong, but because of control and money.
You know what? I agree with almost everything you said. And I can even accept that you believe (your opinion) that ISS will lose. But what I can't understand --- especially after everything you said about thinking ISS is ok on a moral level and should allowed --- is why you are so totally confident about the end result.


I think we can all agree that the law is murky. In murky areas, judges very often take a step back and decide cases based on the smell test -- does the behavior smell bad enough to warrant the big arm of the law cracking down. If it seems like the defendant is doing something 'bad', a judge may construe the ambiguitiy inherent in the situation against the defendant, but similarly if it seems like the defendant hasn't done anything really objectionable, a judge may do just the opposite and construe the ambiguity against the plaintiff.


I happen to think the Napster case is correct -- and if you step back, what Napster was doing absolutely did fail the smell test (at least in IMO). But ISS doesn't have the same rank odor -- it doesn't seem obviously wrong to allow people to occassionally share shows with an identified single person who says he inadvertently missed a show he otherwise has a right to see (e.g. over the air broadcast) and who won't hve the ability to on-send the show to anyone else.


So, could a court (at a district court level, or at an appelate level, or even at the Supreme Court level) hold against ISS? Yes. But it seems entirely possible (and IMO view more likely than not) that a court (again all the way up the chain) could find that ISS is part of fair use. So why all the doom and gloom about how there is no chance that ISS will survive?


Anyway, just my opinion. And as you said, time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Welp, I've seen a few things in the Los Angels Times in the last few days.


One

The thing about Grogster ruling that they were no more illegal than a copy machine, which also could be used for legal or illegal purposes.


Of course the industry plans to appeal immediately.



Two

The Kazzaa case where the RIAA subpenaed the IP company to give the names of two kazzaa swapers(each who had a few hundred mp3s) has been decided on. The judge ruled that the IP company must give up the names to the RIAA. The judge made the judgement not apply for two weeks which will give the IP company time to appeal.


Of course the IP company will appeal.


oh.. the judge reasoned that it was not a threat to peoples personal safety(identity stalkers and such) because there were plenty of provisions for such things in the DMCA Digital Millineum copywrite act(boo). This act, he says, was written to allow copywrite owners to quickly communicate with those who infringed.






The thing that isn't so triumpant about these two rulings is that it clears the gneunnalla Grogster type distrubution software, but does NOT leave the end swappers off the hook. Currently the RIAA are sueing college kids for swapping MP3s within the college network. They are essentially picking out people out at random from amoung the countless 'violating' college kids and sueing them personally many millions of dollars each. ouch.


If Grogster, or if ReplayTV got that far, has no legal liability for what transfers, and the copywrite holders can identify the swappers, they will have a nice side business sueing half America for about $???,???,???,??? a pop. The RIAA might be creating a database of Kazza offenders right now! As long as they work with the time window the stature of limitations allows they can sue every one of them. Hmm! maybe they'll be nice and send out letters that let you settle for $3000 like DirecTV did. Maybe they'll be nice and settle for $300... that would be alot of $$$. Watch out microsoft, you have competition.



icecow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by asinshesq
You know what? I agree with almost everything you said. And I can even accept that you believe (your opinion) that ISS will lose. But what I can't understand --- especially after everything you said about thinking ISS is ok on a moral level and should allowed --- is why you are so totally confident about the end result.
Like you said, these are in the end just opinions. However, I am so confident of the end result because I have spent the last 20 years watching the entertainment industry relentlessly hound, squash and kill everyone who crossed them but wasn't big enough to stand up against them.


Like I said before, even if ISS survives the court challenge, the industry will buy off enough of congress to pass the next version of the DMCA that makes it clearly illegal. I am confident in my assessment of the entertainment industry as a malignant parasitic organism that will cause as much damage as is necessary to serve it's own purposes.


Sure, it's a pessimistic outlook, but it's based on observed behaviors. Until the public wakes up and takes control back, our goverment(s) will continue to serve the corporations who pay them, not the people.
Quote:
Anyway, just my opinion. And as you said, time will tell.
Ditto. And I truly hope that I turn out to be wrong about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by icecow
the copywrite holders can identify the swappers, they will have a nice side business sueing half America for about $???,???,???,??? a pop.
Kinda like the Business Software Alliance huh! The click-wrap agreements that allows them to send in the FBI to take all your computers looking for pirated installs...


Of course the BSA documentation rules are so strict (the original box isn't good enough, you need receipts, invoices, etc) few, if anyone meets them. Of course they offer to settle and avoid damages by having you rebuy all your software.


I'm in the process of moving all my servers in the office to Linux just to avoid dealing with it.


Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I think most of you are missing one important point about sharing shows. It is nothing like the other file sharing services, in that it takes a LONG time just to transfer one short show to one person. The possibility for abuse exists, but the probability of such abuse affecting the broadcast companies financially to any measurable degree is infinitesimal. I personally don't see what all the hubbub is about with the broadcasters.


I have successfully transferred a segment of a show just as a test, but have never successfully received a show. And frankly I gave up trying. I think a lot of owners gave up trying also. It may be because I am behind a firewall that my attempts to receive a show failed. The upshot is that while it is possible to share shows, it is not practical to do so on the order that other file sharing mechanisms do.


And finally, companies can attempt to sue induhviduals for millions of dollars, but you can't get blood from a stone. How many of us will actually pay them the millions they win in a lawsuit? IMO the suits will either be thrown out -- at least against ReplayTV owners -- or the companies will stop suing once they feel their "message" has been sent to the unwashed.


But then, i could be wrong (i am so humble it hurts).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jimbalaia
I think most of you are missing one important point about sharing shows. It is nothing like the other file sharing services, in that it takes a LONG time just to transfer one short show to one person. The possibility for abuse exists, but the probability of such abuse affecting the broadcast companies financially to any measurable degree is infinitesimal. I personally don't see what all the hubbub is about with the broadcasters.


I have successfully transferred a segment of a show just as a test, but have never successfully received a show. And frankly I gave up trying. I think a lot of owners gave up trying also. It may be because I am behind a firewall that my attempts to receive a show failed. The upshot is that while it is possible to share shows, it is not practical to do so on the order that other file sharing mechanisms do.
You are missing one very important concept: Yet. It is not YET as easy as other file sharing systems. It is not YET fast enough to be practical for many people.


However, the trend is towards ever faster internet connectivity. All it takes is for T1 upload speeds to become common (or at least affordable) and the equation starts to shift radically. Move to symmetrical speeds (4 MB/s both ways, for example) and it really starts becoming practical.


This isn't science fiction - it is coming. It's just a matter of time before this type of file transfer starts competing with the "video on demand" services that the cable companies hope to offer - services which, by the way, will be used to sell you re-transmission of shows that you missed.


That's why the broadcasters want this service dead _before_ it becomes easy, practical and fast. They have learned the lesson that it is much easier to keep the genie locked away than to try to stuff it back into the bottle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by scochran666
You are missing one very important concept: Yet. It is not YET as easy as other file sharing systems. It is not YET fast enough to be practical for many people.


However, the trend is towards ever faster internet connectivity. All it takes is for T1 upload speeds to become common (or at least affordable) and the equation starts to shift radically....
Oh no, I agree with another thing you're sayiing ;)


My belief that ISS should survive challenge is not based on the current practicalities of show sharing, but on the belief that show sharing of a certain kind (as I describe above) is within our fair use rights. In contrast however, even though current show sharing is slow as molasses, I think that anyone who tries to share premium cable shows with people who are not subscribers (or PPV shows with people who haven't paid for them) is guilty of infringement.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top