p2pnet - rss feed: StreamCast is liable: court ruling
p2pnet.net News:- In an, “unmitigated victory for the music and movie studios,” a US federal judge has ruled StreamCast Networks, “contributed to massive copyright infringement because the company developed a business model that relied on users who violated the law and it did not attempt to block the trading of copyrighted materials,” says the Los Angles Times.
StreamCast was the only file-sharing company to continue fighting after the US Supreme Court Grokster decision, last year, which opened the way for the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s RIAA to fire off a barrage of cease and desist letters to the commmercial p2p companiues.
Now, this new decision “resolved the litigation” and “clarified the court’s standard,” says the story.
“While the company hasn’t had an opportunity to review in depth the Court’s decision, the court’s ruling is disappointing,” a spokesman told p2pnet.
“StreamCast will consider its options, including appealing the decision.”
BearShare, iMesh, eDonkey, Grokster, and Sharman Networks’ Kazaa have already fallen to the corporate entertainment cartels, with LimeWire engaged in a last-ditch effort to hold back the enemy.
The RIAA, owned by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, has sued LimeWire, parent company Lime Group, ceo Mark Gorton and coo Greg Bildson for $150,000 damages for each song downloaded using LimeWire.
But LimeWire correctly alleges the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) suit is just, “one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models” and that the lawsuit is a component of a plan to, “to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers”.
In a 60-page decision, US district judge Stephen V. Wilson, “granted the entertainment companies’ motion for summary judgment, concluding there was more than enough evidence of ‘massive infringement’ on StreamCast’s network, despite the company’s arguments that it did not encourage computer users to violate copyright laws,” says Wired News.
“In the record before the court, evidence of StreamCast’s unlawful intent is overwhelming,” Wilson wrote.
But StreamCast, “maintains that it did not encourage users to infringe on copyrighted works and never intended to do so,” the company spokesman told p2pnet, adding:
“Morpheus is an innovative, multi-use program with legal uses that are overwhelming. In the meantime, Morpheus will continue to discourage users from infringing upon copyrighted works.”
In 2003, Wilson ruled the p2p companies couldn’t be held liable for the actions of the users of their software, a decision upheld by the appeals courts, “But last year, the US Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that file-sharing companies could be held liable for deliberately encouraging or inducing customers to commit online piracy,” Wired points out.
========================
UPDATE @ 83″35 am Pacific
TechDirt’s Mike has several interesting thoughts on the decision.
“Just because a tool is widely misused, that’s hardly evidence that the maker of the tool intended for it to be used illegally, or that it actively ‘induced’ illegal behavior, he says, going on:
“And, even then, inducement should be a higher standard than just intent. There may very well be evidence that Streamcast induced illegal behavior, but the presence of illegal usage (even lots of it) using their tool is not the same as inducement. It will be interesting to see how Streamcast responds, but it seems likely that it will end up shutting down completely (though it has its other lawsuits to deal with as well). However, if judges start ruling that the presence of noticeable illegal activity is enough evidence to suggest inducement, that’s a dangerous view, and completely rolls back the Supreme Court’s Betamax decision that showed VCRs were legal if they had substantial non-infringing uses.”
Also See:
Los Angles Times - Creator of Morpheus Is Found Liable, September 28, 2006
already fallen - LimeWire versus the RIAA, September 26, 2006
Wired News - Judge: StreamCast Induces Piracy, September 27, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
September 28th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Well there goes P2Pnets major advertiser …
September 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I, too, wonder what will happen to p2pnet.net and if when Morpheus goes down. Can you enlighten us, Jon?
In the meanwhile, I detect a note of glee in the post above this. I look at many of the so-called P2P sites as part of my daily activities and I cannot recall any of them being attacked in quite the same way as p2pnet.net. In fact, the other sites are not attacked at all.
I wonder why p2pnet.net is singled out?
Morg
September 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Because some sentors read P2PNet! And when the crows from MPAA / RIAA talk to some sentors they know to much and reason is time and again they have read P2PNet.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
“Inducement” is a poorly defined concept that invites, and rewards, wild speculation about completely intangible causal relationships.
If you go fishing, the Grokster decision guarantees you’ll get a fish.
If infringement, then inducement, has become today’s standard judicial interpretation: anything that helps infringe, was -meant- to help infringe, unless the defendant somehow manages to subpoena the testimony of a Higher Power to look through time and space and pierce the private thoughts of human beings.
Some negatives are hard to prove, and some just can’t be proven.
The end effect of the Grokster standard is exactly what the MPAA as an entertainment cartel has wanted all along: the subjugation and destruction of their most promising competitor, computer entertainment and the Internet.
Next up: MPAA sues ISPs. So get a head start on the brave new world. Stop spending those discretionary consumer dollars on your DSL line, watch more $12 movies, eat more $6 popcorn.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
September 29th, 2006 at 1:02 am
There goes p2pnet’s major advertiser! Its a shame that thye and p2pnet haven’t learnt any lessons from the past decade in relation to what is actually happenning on the net in relation to content.
More concerningly, streamcast now have to face that patent piracy case, unless they come good it can only end in tears
September 29th, 2006 at 1:52 am
It’s sort of a silly phrase to describe America’s most “trusted” news outlets, but it’s really not far off the mark. Tonight, I documented and analyzed an MPAA related news story broadcast on KABC-TV, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company.
The 6PM Eyewitness News aired an end-of-broadcast puff piece on Lucky and Flo, the optical disk sniffing dogs. Based on my analysis of the piece, I found several indications of MPAA “spin” via incomplete, biased, and misleading journalism:
* The piece does admit that the movie industry’s loss of $11 billion annually to DVD counterfeiting is an estimate, but it presents no neutral sources for that estimate, only the MPAA’s.
* The piece does, to its credit, clearly source the $11 billion estimate to the MPAA, but it does not admit the station’s corporate relationship to the MPAA. Specifically, a major MPAA member, Buena Vista Pictures, is also a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company.
* The piece includes a $7 billion MPAA estimate of loss to Internet piracy, separate from the $11 billion, but this figure has no relevance whatsoever to the news being reported. The $7 billion figure appears to be included solely for shock value.
* The piece claims that Lucky and Flo will save the industry lots of money, but does not elaborate as to why this is true.
* The piece emphasizes that Lucky and Flo are intended to sniff out large scale counterfeit DVDs intended for sale, but then shows one of the dogs sniffing out a single disc in a small box on a mailroom-like conveyor belt.
* The piece also does not elaborate on whether a counterfeit DVD smells any different from other kinds of optical discs, such as legal DVDs, or CDs.
* Finally, the piece is patently not newsworthy for a local Los Angeles broadcast, as it has no effect on local business or citizens, and was simply a demonstration, filmed in Britain, of two trained dogs who may or may not ever be put to use.
Interestingly, a filmed statement by MPAA spokesman Matt Grossman explains, in detail, how “organized crime” makes money through DVDs. According to the MPAA representative, it takes 10 cents to make a copy of a DVD, and selling it at $10 means a “ten thousand percent profit.” Organized crime knows this, says the MPAA, and that’s why organized criminals get into this line of business.
Seriously! I’m not making this up!
If ever a video clip needed to be YouTubed, this Matt Grossman statement is that video clip.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
When both Jon and Streamcast end up winning ( streamcast will appeal ), what will you do for a paycheck, since trolling the boards
will no longer be useful ?
A heart full of hate can only end in tears.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:46 am
Honestly, gotta get a life. The law of inducement has been evolving for quite some time. You people think that by adding the word ‘internet’ you get a free go at breaking the law, that’s so last decade!