Blow to online music piracy fight

[aeonf242]

Attempts by the record industry to fight music piracy on the internet have suffered a double setback.
A US court said that the recording industry's methods to find music swappers are not allowed by the law.

In a separate ruling, the Dutch Supreme Court decided that the popular file-sharing program, Kazaa, is not breaking the law

The rulings are a blow to the record industry, which is trying to stop the illegal sharing of music online.

The music industry says the widespread copying of music over the internet is partly to blame for a drop in CD sales worldwide.

It has turned to the courts to try to stop people downloading music for free over the internet.

Individuals targeted

One of the more controversial tactics was legal action against individuals accused of sharing music files online without permission.

The Recording Industry Association of America had issued hundreds of subpoenas to force internet providers, such as Verizon, to identify customers suspected of file-swapping.

But Verizon argued that existing copyright law did not give the recording industry the power to force it to hand over names and addresses of their subscribers.

A three-judge panel has now agreed with its interpretation of the law, overturning an earlier ruling that had approved the use of subpoenas.

The ruling by the US appeals court may force a change in tactics by the music labels.

Dutch reversal

There was more bad news for the record labels, this time from the Dutch Supreme Court.

This decision has no bearing at all on the single most important fact, which is that people who are distributing copyrighted music over such systems, and that means the vast bulk of all users, are breaking the law

Allan Dixon, IFPI
It ruled that the world's most popular file-sharing program, Kazaa, was not breaking the law.

The Dutch court said that the developers of the software could not be held responsible for how individuals used it.

"The victory by Kazaa creates an important precedent for the legality of peer-to-peer software, both in the European Union and elsewhere," said Kazaa's lawyers Bird & Bird, in a statement.

The founders of Kazaa, Niklas Zennstroem and Janus Friis, described the ruling as an "historic victory for the internet and consumers".

The reaction from the music industry was to criticise the ruling as "one-sided".

"The Dutch judgement is flawed because it was based on a one-sided presentation of the facts as put forward by Kazaa," said Allen Dixon, Director of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a music trade body.

"In any case, this decision has no bearing at all on the single most important fact, which is that people who are distributing copyrighted music over such systems, and that means the vast bulk of all users, are breaking the law."

Kazaa has long since replaced Napster as the main file-sharing service, with more than 17 million registered users in Europe and the US.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3335063.stm

[Swafe]

i read about this, 17 million? more like 170 million..


is this 'kazaa is legal' worldwide? or just in the dutch place the judges ruled it ?

[aeonf242]

Probably just the Dutch, good excuse for a visit to Holland though :-)

[KraniX]

saw this at tech-report.com

In The Netherlands, Kazaa is no longer kept hanging on, thanks to the Dutch Supremes. The court rejected a Netherlands-based royalties collection society's demand that Kazaa's distribution cease and that future versions be modified to prevent the exchange of copyrighted materials, and ruled that developers are not liable for how people use their software. The decision does not legitimize sharing copyrighted works, and is likely to pave the way for individual lawsuits that directly target those sharing copyrighted material.


Coincidentally, the RIAA's strategy of targeting individual song swappers with lawsuits was dealt a blow by a US appeals court who ruled that ISPs are not required to identify users accused of illegal distribution unless a formal lawsuit has been filed. The RIAA had previously been able to subpoena the personal information of accused song swappers without filing a lawsuit. The RIAA also argued that ISPs are responsible for downloaded music because such data runs through their network, but that charge that was rejected by the court because it "borders upon the silly."

[Swafe]

Originally posted by aeonf242
Probably just the Dutch, good excuse for a visit to Holland though :-)

that makes 2 good reasons to go

[Twigman]

The reaction from the music industry was to criticise the ruling as "one-sided".

well that was a surprise wasnt it

[Punky]

Originally posted by Swafeman
that makes 2 good reasons to go

you need a reason ?!

when will the record companies realise that as long as they charge stupid prices for music, people are gonna get it for free online?!

[Stoo]

Of course, the worldwide drop in cd sales has nothing to do with widespread price-fixing and the generally lacklustre products the music industry has been producing for the past few years...,

The music industry constantly blames everything else for poor sales rather than itself, they blamed the cassette recorder for poor sales of records, then again with cd recorders a few years later, and now the internet..

There have been many different studies performed on the financial model the music industry uses with many different solutions for increasing sales and revenue, all of which have been rejected by the music industry

A quick google will find most of the studies, they make quite interesting reading

[Steve]

I still buy CD's - but not if they're crap.

Sadly, most of them are crap - no point in buying them. Oh look, CD sales just went down! Obviously because of file sharers, and not the fact that people don't actually like boy bands.

[Rabs]

I agree, I dont like to buy rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishe cd's either.

AFAIK artists only get approx 25p of the cost of a single in royalties.

Which begs the big question where does the rest go...

What a load of *ollocks...

If the 'big' music players got there act together and released pay per track at umm I'd say 50p per track and have unique identifiers on each track (to track people who copy there tracks widespread ie make money from them), they'd make a killing...

Saying that though, I bet the artists would only see 5p per track of it...

[Saracen]

I think the problem here is that a dinosaur is fighting to protect itself from extinction. And the dinosaur ?? Oh, the record industry, of course.

I don't condone copyright theft - after all, I own several thousand copyrights myself. It gives me a different perspective on this from many people here. Without copyright protection, much artistic effort would simply cease. Those that make a living from it need that protection or they can't make a living from it.

HOWEVER, that doesn't give the music industry an excuse to rip consumers off and THAT, in my opinion, is what has been happening for years.

I'm lucky, in that I spend a lot of time in the US. It's backed off a lot the last three years or so, but prior to that, I was in the US at least 5 or 6 times a year, and would spend, on average, 2 months (sometimes more) of the year there. I also spend time in the far east (especially Japan).

I've had extensive opportunity to compare prices and all I'll say is that it's been YEARS since I've bought CD's on the high street in the UK.

If I want it, I buy it in the US. These days, however, much of that price disparity doesn't exist when you use online ordering, even in the UK.

But the argument is not just about UK prices. If piracy were just occurring in the UK, the industry wouldn't be anywhere near so worked up about it. It's absolutely rife INSIDE the US too - so the price disparity between the UK and US is not what it's all about.

The situation is a lot more complex than many people seem to acknowledge. I've often seen "CD's cost 10p to make so how come they charge £10" arguments. What about the £'000's it costs to hire a recording studio? What about all the time the artist spends writing and recording? What about cover-note designers? What about the costs of transport and distribution? In the high-street model, you have record company profits, distributor profits, wholesaler profits, retailer profits - and costs for all these - too.

The record industry is not unique in this. Look at what a farmer gets for a pint of milk or a pound of potatoes and compare it to supermarket shelf prices. Actually, don't - you'd probably get very annoyed.

So why is the dinosaur facing extinction? Because people are realising that we don't actually NEED a record industry - certainly not along the lines of the one we have.

Computer technology means that recording sessions don't need the same expensive studios that they once did, and that CD production in small quantities is perfectly feasible on a home-industry scale. Even medium-scale production does not need multi-billion pound industries. And most telling, distribution methods are changing. THAT, if anything, is the lesson for the record industry in all this. Consumers are fed up with manufactured (and often crap) bands, and artists are realising that they CAN take control from record companies. The power is shifting relentlessly away from record companies, and they know it, and don't like it. The gravy train is running of the tracks.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that record companies need to adapt or die. They cannot win this one. They need to refocus, and accept that their monopoly power is gone for ever. Those that do this successfully have a future, those that don't, ..... well, maybe they aren't dinosaurs, but dodo's, with a healthy dollop of ostrich mixed in. By the time they get their heads out of the sand (or wherever else they have them firmly stuck), they'll be extinct.

[Swafe]

if cd sales went up - they wouldnt complain

if cd sales go down they moan like little bitches


of course its goin to fluctuate, there not goin to sell the same amount of cds every month are they? or sales arnt goin to go up by a certain percentage, rubbish

if sales are goin down, due to rubbish commericialised cheese ball music like pop idol most people with sense dont buy, or due to the fact people would sooner get cds on dvd for better sound quality or the like, blamin it on piracy is BS

[Stoo]

*Applauds Saracen*

I know at least two bands that have been doing stuff on their own for a while now, and they're much better off for it.

More freedom to produce what they want, when they want to, and more often than not you end up with far better material because it's not been rushed, rather than a bunch of crap because the label forced the album out to some rediculous schedule.

[oshta]

Originally posted by Saracen
HOWEVER, that doesn't give the music industry an excuse to rip consumers off and THAT, in my opinion, is what has been happening for years.

Well as I've sayed before - If CD price fall a bit i would by them, how about:
- Single - £3.00
- Album - £4.50
- 2 disk comp - £5.80

at that price i would buy but at the moment i'm 16, living on money for parents spending all hours god send studiying at collage - and i Can't afford to buy a album for £15/16 when i only like 5 of the songs

[Hammy]

lol you just have to look at the latest now 56 and hits cds full of cr@p songs to know why the sales are away down

[Swafe]

why the hell do they charge 4 quid for singles?

you get 1 song - and what ? a useless b side that you hate, i think they should charge a lot less, and give same to the artist , just cutting out the corperate cheeses