BearShare Shuts Down, Pays Up... Though It's Not Clear Why
from the folding-up dept
Following the decision in last year's Grokster Supreme Court case, the entertainment industry started pretending the decision said something it didn't. The actual decision said that companies could be liable for copyright infringement if they somehow actively induced people to violate copyright law. The entertainment industry, however, just pretended that the courts completely outlawed file sharing systems -- and quickly sent threatening letters to a bunch of them. It looks like another one has caved in. BearShare has agreed to shut down and pay the industry $30 million -- which seems like a ridiculously high sum. This is made even more evident by the idea that BearShare could actually have a legitimate response to any lawsuit brought against them. For example, we've already pointed out that TorrentSpy is fighting back, and pointing out that (despite the entertainment industry's assertion) simply running a file sharing network is not illegal. As long as the company behind it didn't actively promote the illegal uses of the software, they're probably perfectly fine (though, the next court case will obviously determine that). It's understandable that the folks at BearShare didn't want to go through the hassle of a lawsuit, but it's unfortunate that they simply shut down and paid up -- as it gives the entertainment industry more fodder to go out and bully others. There's no doubt that BearShare was used for illegal purposes -- but the question is who is responsible for that use: the actual users or the software providers. It's worrying (though completely predictable) that the entertainment industry is succeeding in making people believe that the software developer is now responsible for anyone who misuses a software product.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Its like...
Get real.
A=A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue the people with the money!
this seems to be the common pattern here. so in answer to Kevin M, yes, sue the gun manufacturers... sue the car manufacturers for drunk drivers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sue the people with the money!
Its getting worrying that the music industry is allowed to get away with this c**p - the software developers have done NOTHING wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canada
GOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sue Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proper Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper Analogy
The real allure of digital downloads of music or anything else is the your copy is fundamentally exact
in all pespects to the original. you would have to copy a painting molecule for molecule, which is a very tall order, to achieve the same accuracy in a physical
object. This is of course the root of all of the recording industries holy war. Never in history has the means to make high quality reproductions that are identical to the original in every way been so cheap and available. I remember seeing record stores being closed because they were selling copies of hit records made by pirates the costed 4 bucks a pop.
if it costs 50 cents to make a copy now I would be surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proper Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proper Analogy
Ok then, let's just change the analogy from photocopying art to photographing with your shiny new 10 Megapixel camera some of Ansel Adams photographs. Hmmm might even turn out as better quality!
When the technology becomes available, the dinosaur industries must adapt and change their buisness model like Mike has been trying to tell you anti-PTP peeps.
The recording industry has created a biz model over the past 100 years that has basically brainwashed people with the idealogy that because you've made a great song you deserve millions for it! It's a big load of c*#p! Artists historically have starved, earning the big bucks is a relatively new phenomenon on the grand scale of art and human history! Did Michelangelo make millions off of David? No! And yet that piece of art has made more people happy that "Achy Breaky Heart" ever will, so why does Billy Ray Cyrus deserve to live in a mansion when Michelangelo did not? This is the great lie of the music industry and a part of what helps it to self perpetuate.
You make music because you love it/have a tallent for it. The biz model is adjusting to where it historically should be.
BTW, I have over 400 legitimate paid for CD's in my collection and add to it all the time. I have not used a PTP program since Napster was shut down, but am thinking about getting one ever since the Sony Music root kit fiasco.
I recently purchased a Coldplay CD that won't play on my computer without installing something?!? So the obvious thing is to download some mp3's of the tracks as I have legitimatley paid for their use but am restricted from listening to them on my computer?
Oddly enough this is why I did not go to the Coldplay concert. I hated the fact that they did this to me. Wake up musicians you are only shooting yourselves in the foot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breaking news:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're ruining their business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the focus on Target
Money buys everything in this country. Especially your freedom ( OJ Simpson, Robert Blake ). If there was an effective organisation with enough money to bribe the lawmakers than even the RIAA would buckle under.
Until then we'll just have to keep taking it on the chin.
Apropos. Is there any P2P network that hasn't been sued? I remember something recently on BitTorrent. Anybody know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ's and Producers know
Get good music, that you haven't heard 1000 times in the past week.
Also couldn't we go back to the old days... just put a FM antena in our computers and record off of the air... The the IRAA could go after the radio stations and shut them down too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DJ's and Producers know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
start the revolution
No one buy music or movies
Dont rent them dont go to theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honesty
My feeling is that everyone who has commented here and the millions more whose opionions they reflect quite simply want to get free stuff and are unwilling to face the grim reality that people who provide good products are justified in getting paid for their work.
Accept personal responsibility to compensate those whose work you enjoy. Just because it is easy and you can get away with it does not make it OK. It's as simple as that.
Start the revolution indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honesty
The fact is however, that the kids seldom listen to the songs they have downloaded and have CD's for their favorite music. The adults never download and buy CDs from time to time.
The overwhelming reasons for the drop in music sales, if there is a drop, are:
1. people have more choices. My kids spend their money on video games not CD and their time playing games not listening to music
2. most of the music is crap. How many times can you listen to dysfunctional Black American youths sing about engaging in violent crime or prostition and still find it entertaining. At least when I was a kid the songs were about doing recreational drugs which we could all participate in and relate to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something for nothing
How would you like to work and not get paid? Why don't all of you stop your whining and legally purchase your music? I guess many people think they are entitled to get something for nothing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something for nothing
I buy my music when I want to listen and do not steal it. Even with that said, though, these services have distinct value outside piracy and just because they can be used for that is no reason to close them down. Like a few others said - should we sue the car maker for the drunk driver? Or how about Ford - they make those Lincolns with big trunks, and you know the mob puts bodies in those trunks... we need to arrest the chairman of Ford for conspiracy to commit murder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something for nothing
You claim there is. Elaborate and your point can be made much more valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something for nothing
As I said earlier these programs may theoretically have a non-piracy value but that has rarely if ever been demonstrated in actual practice. Other channels used to exchange files legally (email atachments, for example) are sufficiently cumbersome that they make large-scale sharing impractical, but noone cares because large-scale file sharing is not needed in the legitimate realm under normal circumstances.
Your example is silly, and really the only examples I have read that defend the neutrality argument are silly ('suing the gun manufacturer because your neighbor shot your dog', 'sue the entertainment industry since they are providing the music that people are pirating', 'sue Microsoft for providing a platform that allows these programs to run').
Can someone come up with a good example? There are always two or more legitimate ways to look at a given issue but I haven't read anything reasonable to refute my point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
I think any number of bands that used such platforms to build a name for themselves would disagree with you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
For him to understand this and to believe it he would have to use the software. He has probably never seen the bands that are legitimately listed on the p2p websites or the links in the app dialogs that show the artist.
His assumption is that all files shared through p2p are illegal. Which, as we have said, is not a valid assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
Don't get me wrong - I am pro-democracy, pro-public freedom and public rights. But I have not read anything that dispels the idea that piracy violates these very principles by stepping on the toes of those who provide various forms of electronic content - these people deserve to get paid for their work. Bearshare, like Napster before them, knowingly and willingly facillitated piracy on a large scale. They knowingly and willingly violated the rights of those who made it clear they wanted to get paid.
I don't think that getting paid for your work constitutes a bad economic system. I think that this is a system which has built-in sustainability, balances itself, and produces corruption but also justice at least some of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
No. They provided a system, like FTP, the web, or email that made it possible for misuse to occur. The people who knowingly and willingly violated the rights of musicians did so by sharing music on such a system. It's an important distinction.
I don't think that getting paid for your work constitutes a bad economic system. I think that this is a system which has built-in sustainability, balances itself, and produces corruption but also justice at least some of the time.
Well, yes and no. Getting paid for your work is a good economic system -- but you have to recognize the basic economics at work here. With digital goods, the marginal cost = $0, and as your economics lessons taught you, if that's the case, as the market gets more competitive the price will get pushed towards $0 *anyway*. In other words, charging directly for digital products isn't a long term sustainable business model, no matter how you look at it.
There is no *right* to get paid. There is only a right to try to sell a product... and then the market decides how much they're willing to pay for it.
So, if the price is getting pushed towards nothing and people still want to get paid, the real issue is coming up with other business models -- which is exactly what many artists are doing. They're recognizing that they sell entertainment, not the specific music itself. The music acts as a promotion for additonal things, such as concerts, sponsorship deals, merchandise, CDs (some people do like having the tangible product) and even access to the band.
This isn't to say that the people using Bearshare for illegal purposes didn't break the law. It is saying that the music industry needs to recognize the basic economic reality they face... and understand that they can embrace it and build a bigger market for themselves. If they stop thinking about *selling* music, and turn the price = $0 equation around, they could recognize that the music is a promotional good, and rather than a price =$0, they have a promotional item whose COST = $0. That's a huge benefit for them. It lowers the cost of promotions.
They just need to figure out what they're promoting. Some bands have figured this out. Others will get it eventually.
But, to hold back this innovation by saying we need to enforce an outdated system of FAKING scarcity so that the price no longer equals zero is an economic inefficiency that will eventually be a historical remnant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something for nothing
very eloquently said; however, the people running the riaa apparently have not taken macro or micro economics ;)
if you want to get paid for something, you have to figure out how to market it and price it so that people will buy it.
the wrench here is that for decades, music was done one way and then came along that darn new technology stuff that the masses have embraced.
customer mentaility has evovled with technology, and so must the marketing and pricing. its just that change can be painful and resisting the change seems to be the easiest way out of having to invent a new system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something for nothing
Digital recording, for example, allowed them to re-sell all the music we'd already bought on LPs to us again on CDs, for the increased fidelity.
But along comes a technology that works against them, and out comes the hammer. Seems to me that the recording industry, overall, has benefited a great deal from technology. And they probably under-compensated the technology inventors every time. However, when the technology starts to work against this bloated industry based on (now) fake scarcity, they don't want to go back to the way it was when artists actually had to perform for a living.
Recorded music, as Mike said, is no longer scarce. It has a marginal cost of 0. What is scarce, is live performances, and myriad other things that creative entrepreneurs and artists might think of selling. As an industry, the administration and overhead is bloated and probably needs to shrink over time. The artists, in the long run, will actually benefit, because they can use the new medium to access the public directly, instead of having to partner with the RIAA.
This technology will eventually be seen as good for Artists, bad for the bloated industry, and good for consumers.
Technology is neutral. It can do both good, and evil. It can work for you, or against you. Tough sh#t. As Mrs. Garrett taught us, you take the good, you take the bad, you take the rest and then you have the facts of life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something for nothing
The original intent does not negate its current legitimate usefullness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something for nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The principle of the matter
Still though, I agree with the rest of you. Just as Google is not responsible for the ads that people and data people upload, BearShare and other P2P software companies are not liable for the data that people choose to upload and share on that network. The adage is old but still just as true, "Don't hate on me, I'm just the messenger" or "Don't kill the messenger for the message"
This just goes to show that no matter how rich corporate America becomes, they still can never have enough. It's really no longer about money (we know this because they have it and don't stop). It's now about control and power of a market and group of people. This has to stop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p
you and i decide to mail copies of books back and forth. none of the presses are sueing the postal service for providing p2p sharing. that would be crazy, esp since what you are mailing isn't anyone elses business.
there are a billion illegal things mailed ... but nobody is asking to shut down the vehichle which delivers the illegal items. the people on either end of the illegal shipments are the ones responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: p2p
It's really a whole new world of ethics that we as a society have yet to come to grips with. Either the public morality must shift and decide that file sharing is wroing and generally avoid doing it, or we as a people need to decide that the old model of paying people for musical performances, software design, movie productions, etc, needs to change.
If bands were on salary maybe noone would care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: p2p
my example said copies of books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: p2p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This lawsuit is illegal
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act talks about this very issue, saying that the service provider should not be treated as the publisher of offensive material
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=47&sec=230
"(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
by another information content provider."
I think that pretty much covers it right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This lawsuit is illegal
try looking at the law. if they broke the law, they are liable. if they didn't, they're fine... it really is black and white.
as we all know, the RIAA bullies you until you give in... and the court systems charge you for that bullying, so it's obvious that bearshare just gave up early..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I can say there is more junk mail in my mailbox than legitimate mail. While junk mail is not illegal it is often questionable as to the tactics and wording. And a few years ago credit card companies got in big trouble for the contents of their mail. There were more credit card offers in my mailbox than legitimate mail. Doesn't mean the post office should be held responsible.
I'm not saying that people should get something for nothing but I don't agree with going after the p2p creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craziness with the RIAA
We need to pick particular days and not buy music from artist who are part of this process of abusing consumers and send e mails and tell them that we would have purchased your CD but... you are involved with an agency that strong arms your consumers therefore you are on your own and if and when we listen to your stuuff it will be on radio FREE radio and not XM. I am not feeling warm and fuzzy about the music industry trying to big brother me.
So if anyone knows of an organized boycott and response let me know if not lets talk about putting one together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go ahead, blame the software...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go ahead, blame the software...
Funny! Lets see if we can get AOL users to do the same!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Code Desiphered
I - Idiots
A- After
A- ALL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever
Right, so the way for them to get paid is to come up with a better business model, such as the one I outlined above.
If the argument is to leave file sharing software alone, (because of it's legitimacy) how do we keep music from being stolen?
Again, read the business model I pointed out above. Musicians stop selling *music* and start selling additional products around the music: concerts, sponsorships, merchandise, access, CDs etc... and let the music act as free promotions.
Then people get to hear more music, and the good musicians still get paid.
And nothing gets "stolen".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever
And we all lose out if an artist can paint something great but can't get paid for it... but unfortunately, that's life. Some people can make money doing things, others can't.
As for songwriters, that's easy. They should be paid-for-hire jobs. If someone wants them to write a song, pay them to write it. Most people work that way. Very few people help build a widget and then demand to get a % of the profits.
The point is the business models are changing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever
When performers/musicians play live, THAT is a pay-for-hire job. What is so threatening to you that some people build "widgets" and continue to make residual income? Is it because you live in a career where that's not possible and you're jealous? Just pay for your music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever
No, I understand the concept very much. My point, as I've stated repeatedly, is that the market for such things is going away. That's simply what's happening. You can pretend it's not or focus on laws that try to pretend it's not... but it is.
When performers/musicians play live, THAT is a pay-for-hire job. What is so threatening to you that some people build "widgets" and continue to make residual income? Is it because you live in a career where that's not possible and you're jealous? Just pay for your music.
No. I do pay for my music. I've never downloaded a song illegally in my life. I have a large CD collection and I continue to buy CDs all the time (though, from independent artists).
I'm not "threatend" at all. If people want to try to continue making money that way, they certainly should go ahead and do so. All I'm pointing out is that the market is clearly telling them it won't be possible for long. I'm trying to *HELP* them see other business models so they can continue to make money (in many cases MORE money) by adopting these new business models sooner, rather than later.
As for my career? Are you crazy? I work in an industry where most of our competitor DO use that model. It's absolutely possible for us, but we're aware enough how the market is changing that we're leading the charge with a different business model -- and we're doing damn well with it. Better than our competitors who are shutting down and laying off people...
So, I'll try it again slowly: I'm not saying that the musicians have to do this. I'm just saying if they stay the course, there's not going to be any market for them. So they're BETTER OFF adopting this new business model that lets them get EVEN MORE while making their fans EVEN HAPPIER.
It's a total win-win situation. There's no loss involved. Why are you so threatened by it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever
What do you do for a living? Can I use your service without paying... Or walk into your store and take something off the shelf and leave?
The music "is" the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever
What do you do for a living? Can I use your service without paying... Or walk into your store and take something off the shelf and leave?
The music "is" the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever
Yes, there is something new about the business model. In the way I describe it, they start using their music for promotional value to *increase* the value of those other things. Also, I just gave you a quick version, but there's many more things they can do well beyond what is done today. For example, there's one band that has started its own travel agency to help fans travel with the band around the country. I'm not saying every band should do that, but it does show that bands are learning how to be creative in their business models.
What do you do for a living? Can I use your service without paying... Or walk into your store and take something off the shelf and leave?
You read Techdirt every day for free, don't you? We've figured out a business model that lets you do so. So, yup, you can use our product without paying. If you want us to create special content for you -- then you pay for us to create that content, nothing more. It's just like any other work-for-hire job. Companies pay us to create content, but we don't put limitations on what they do with it and we certainly don't demand a piece of the profits from what they do with that content.
So, yeah, don't try to tell use we don't live by the same rules we spout. We do every day, and we're damn successful at it.
Finally, no matter how many times people insist that copying a digital file is the same as "taking something off the shelf and leaving" it's not. Even the Supreme Court has said so. Nothing is *lost* in that case. I still have the digital item. That's the point. The marginal cost for a new version is zero... and thus the price gets pushed to zero over time. That's basic economics.
You can ignore it if you want, but economics has a way of winning.
The music "is" the product.
Yup, just as the makers of buggy whips had that as their product once also. The point is that any reasonable person looks at the economics and the trends and recognizes that the market for music alone as a product disappears.
But that's not a problem because there are a TON of other business models... many of which are doing quite well for bands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever
Truly great musicians don't have time to start their own travel agency.. This is a tired and stupid argument....
Wow, did you seriously misunderstand my comment that much? I even spelled it out for you. I wasn't saying everyone needs to start a travel agency. However, I was just pointing out there are plenty of business models that the music can help sell. And, I'm not saying the musicians themselves are the travel agents, but that something like the travel agency makes enough money that it's worth it to have the musicians doing music FULL TIME.
This isn't that complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid cases
i'm going to sue the monitor/tv companies for giving me bad eyesight.
i'm going to sue video game makers for making me have adhd.
i'm going to sue my teachers for giving me bad grades.
i'm going to sue my girlfreind for leaving me.
i'm going to sue the house makers for puting the wall where i hit it everyday.
so on and so forth.
all of those are stupid, and if things like this keep on going, they are going to become reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid cases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Just Be Consistant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As stated earlier Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the grammar errors if any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets sue cisco and microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's The Least They Can Do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bare share
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprised By BearShare burning once.
I could understand why they're doing this with thteir software since the lawsuit, they have no choice.
I'll just have to find software that does. Media Player 10 is good but two burners installed in my computer and niether is recognized by the software. After checking on this problem I realized that there are alot of people who are also having similar problems with Microsoft desktop Media Player 10.
Remote Assistance Software - - Software for Remote Desktop Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprised By BearShare burning once.
I guess one answer could be that they are an easy target. Since bearshare is used to download software having the ability to just burn it right to a cd was I guess too much for the record industry to bear (no punn intended).
Anyone could still burn cds on thier desktop after downloading just by getting other burning software and just burn the files. It's an extra step to take but the record industry doesn't stop alot of people from doing it.
Thank you,
Remote Support Software -|- PC Remote Support Software -|- Remote Desktop Support Software -|- Remote Assistance Software
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bear share
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
friends
[ link to this | view in chronology ]