June 29, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Industries digest Grokster ruling
- Related Stories
-
File-swap fallout in Supreme Court ruling
June 27, 2005 -
iMesh almost ready to become paid file-swap network
February 17, 2005 -
Movie blackout for P2P networks?
February 10, 2005 -
Music rebels seek to tame P2P
November 16, 2004 -
Record labels settle with Israeli P2P company
July 20, 2004 -
RIAA sues iMesh file-trading firm
September 19, 2003
(continued from previous page)
doing, they can start charging for swaps with the industry's blessing.
The 6-year-old, 30-employee iMesh may indeed be a trailblazer for those peer-to-peer companies that want to stay in business in the United States.
One of most popular
Once one of the most popular post-Napster networks, iMesh was sued by the RIAA in late 2003. Attorneys for iMesh ultimately contacted Summer, who was then a consultant in New York, to see if he would help broker a settlement with the record industry trade group he headed in the early 1980s.
After several meetings, Summer said he was convinced that the Israeli company was sincerely committed to stopping copyright infringement and agreed to help. The resulting agreement between the RIAA and the company gave iMesh a grace period that has now stretched nearly a year to keep its service intact--copyright infringement and all--until it has finished a new paid-music alternative.
In short, the new iMesh will retain part of its old file-swapping identity, with some free songs available from people's hard drives, but with filters from a company called Audible Magic blocking most copyright works.
Songs will also be available to purchase individually, and the service will offer a monthly all-you-can-eat subscription plan courtesy of MusicNet, the same wholesaler that powers music services from Yahoo, America Online and others. No hard launch date has been set, but the company plans to add features throughout the year.
"It is a complex transition, far more complex than people would have imagined," Summer said. "There has been a great deal of development and that development continues to take place."
Bold peer-to-peer experiment
iMesh remains the only major former swapping network to adopt filtering in order to satisfy the big content companies (although the original Napster tried, disastrously, for several months).
However, several other networks are starting from scratch, hoping to build new swapping services around filtering technology that blocks unauthorized trades, while still allowing them to charge for legal downloads.
Wayne Rosso, the flamboyant former president of Grokster, said he is close to launching his new Mashboxx service after months of flying around the world meeting with record executives. The Supreme Court decision Monday only makes his business a better proposition, he boasted.
"I happen to be the only guy who's been the respondent and the beneficiary of a Supreme Court decision on the same day," Rosso joked. "It's a huge boost to us and our future."
Rosso's Mashboxx, which like iMesh will support only music files, is the first to use filtering technology from Snocap, the new company founded by Shawn Fanning, the creator of the original Napster service. Fanning and his team of engineers hope that Monday's ruling will drive other peer-to-peer companies to sign up for the filtering tools.
"I think the decision shows that P2Ps can't become legal businesses unless they settle with the industry and become authorized providers," said Ali Ayar, Snocap's chief operating officer.
For now, Snocap, like Audible Magic, offers peer-to-peer companies the ability to filter out only copyright music swaps, turning those into sales. But it has plans to add movie filtering to the mix by next year, using technology being developed by Royal Philips Electronics.
If all of those pieces come together, Summer said he believes iMesh and others will be able to keep people coming to peer-to-peer services even if they aren't free anymore. Community, the ability to discover new music, and the still-strong attraction of peering into other people's music collection will keep people coming back, he said.
"Those are the aspects that need to survive," Summer said. "I can't imagine tens of millions of people being attracted to a service simply because it was free."
See more CNET content tagged:
file-swapping, Grokster Ltd., iMesh, StreamCast Networks, eDonkey
24 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.
Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.
The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.
Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.
"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."
But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?
"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."
But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?
They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.
What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.
Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.
And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.
With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.
A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).
A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.
Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.
We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.
Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.
It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.
Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.
Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.
It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.
Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.
So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.
However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.
I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.
2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.
3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.
You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.
I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.
What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.
Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).
And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".
A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.
Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".
Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).
So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.
Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).
And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...
>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"
That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".
>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"
In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.
>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"
What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?
Why would I have a problem with that..?
>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."
Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.
It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".
But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.
They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.
What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.
Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.
And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.
With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.
A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).
A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.
Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.
We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.
Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.
It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.
Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.
Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.
It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.
Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.
So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.
However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.
I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.
2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.
3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.
You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.
I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.
What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.
Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).
And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".
A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.
Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".
Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).
So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.
Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).
And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...
>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"
That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".
>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"
In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.
>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"
What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?
Why would I have a problem with that..?
>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."
Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....
Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.
It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".
But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd</a>
It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.
It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd</a>