Judge Agrees With RIAA; Says Illegal Activity On Morpheus Meant It Induced Infringement
from the not-that-surprising dept
While it's often referred to as the "Grokster" case, the lawsuit actually involved a few different companies, including Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus. Last year, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case, they did not (contrary to what the entertainment industry will tell you) outlaw file sharing apps. All the court did was say that if the maker of the app could be shown to have induced the infringement, then a court could find them liable for copyright infringement. Then, it sent the case back to the lower court to review its original decision (which had said that the software makers were not liable for the actions of their users). While Grokster ended up "settling," Streamcast was unable to reach a settlement and decided that it would go back to the lower court and make the case that they did not induce infringement.It appears, however, that the judge didn't buy it. He's granted summary judgment to the record labels, saying that there's "overwhelming" evidence of Streamcast's intent. Given the market in the days when Morpheus was popular, it wouldn't be surprising to find some evidence that could be construed as "inducing" infringement. However, from the quotes in the Associated Press article (and, perhaps there's more in the actual ruling), it sounds like the judge felt that the evidence of "massive infringement" on the system was evidence of inducement. While the RIAA must love that, it's very troublesome. 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. 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.
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
dangerous view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dangerous view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well shoot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well shoot...
The main use of peer to peer technology is to distribute content, far less "bad".
Now it's true that killing != murder, but it's still a very poor analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well shoot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well shoot...
the analogy is perfect. if you claim that simply creating something that ends up being used illegally means the creator intended it to be used in such a manor than they are the same - scale of your perception of what is more or less "bad" has nothing to do with the underlying point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that's the case
VCRs are illegal because many people use them to make copies of videos
CD-R/DVD-Rs are illegal for the same reasons
Don't even get them started on computers
Shoes are illegal because people jaywalk while using them, or kick other people while wearing them
What a scary precedent. Since when did personal responsibility go out the window? Blame the people, not the tools. And let's examine why people use these tools... DRM *cough*. Kind of makes me glad I am fighting overseas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to the Xtreem
Actually, Speakers should be illegal too.
And ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dogs are illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dogs are illegal
To be fair about all of this, Morpheus did allow free download of copywritten media without the permission of the creator of said media, and that's infringement. Morpheus wasn't some holy good guy, just because you got something free out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dogs are illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dogs are illegal
This is only true if the dog is owned by anyone....what about the ones that aren't owned? And what about all the wild animals that leave presents everywhere? (I think that's what he ment.)
But yes, if this ends up going through it will be a major set back to the development of new technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dogs are illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone companies induce illegal activity, it is used massively to slander friends, enemies, family and neighbours.
car makers induce illegal activity, they offer tools which are used massively to drive too fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes the (network) neighborhood...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irc and more
This is just stupid. P2P Software can be used for a host of perfectly legal things. Why punish the companies who creat the software for the illegal activities of the users which they have no control over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds a lot like gun control...
If you ban guns you have to ban knives, forks, hachets, saws, needles, cottonswabs doused in arsnic, etc...
Funny how the same line of reasoning works over there but not over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds a lot like gun control...
that's why guns can't be controlled, but file sharing damn sure can be. if there were an NFSA, this would be a completely different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds a lot like gun control...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all the Govt's fault
Well of course it isn't the legal definition of entrapment, but the judge seems to think that it is. Company X creates program Y and the RIAA freaks out. Well "Company X created this program so, of course, the public is going to abuse it!!", they say. But did company X tell the public "HEY COME GET YOUR FREE MUSIC!" ? No, I never got that memo.
So, it's Hollywood's fault then. It's their movies, music, and diatribes that corece the public into misdeeds. They are the ones showing us how to subvert the system while they glorify gangster lifestyles, teach us how to rob banks, drive fast, have sex, and fight the power. All the while they sit back, count the money, get drunk/high, crash into things, have crazy parties, and whatnot. Right? No, I don't suppose that really holds up either.
Though parents use that line of logic when their kids go off on some rampage and we all wonder why the parents can make such imbecilic claims. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060926/110344.shtml
As has been mentioned, people speed on highways. Cars are safer, roads are wider, and people's self-confidence -- misplaced or not -- provides a sense of security and a bit more pressure on the gas pedal. But the roads are a necessary service. So too is the Internet a service.
When roads are bad, people avoid them. When movies and music is bad, people avoid them. To equate abusers with loss of revenue makes as much as sense as blaming speeders for potholes. I can only pray that Limewire can convince, or out-bribe, the judge of what we see the RIAA is: a bully with fat pockets, a lot of smoke and mirrors, and snake oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem is.
I realize that the guys who wrote Morpheus and all the other file sharing software my claim they did not intend their software to be used in that fashion but what other reason would they have for creating it at the time they did.
Napster was created for the purpose of sharing music. And they paid for this. Other developers decided they could get around the same fate as Napster by allowing all sorts of content be downloaded. This make sense since they could just claim they made it to share un copyrighted content.
But the problem comes with none of the Filesharing programs have gone out of their way to try and prevent the use of their software for illegal purposes. And the reason their product would lose its user base if they could not download copyrighted material.
Had Morpheus and other companies like them taken measures to help prevent illegal use of their software the law might have taken it into consideration and they would probably not be in they spot they are in.
It is only a matter of time for Lime wire.
People are looking at this as an issue with the tool but it is not. It is a matter of negligence on part of the tools manufacturer. People sue for manufacturer negligence all the time. Streamcast was negligent they knew what their software would be used for and took no measures to prevent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so moving along, it's going to be difficult to PROVE that limewire/morpheus or whatever had the INTENT to provoke illegal activities. can doctors go into our minds and read our past thoought? what will have to happen is someone the creators talked to will say that creators explained they are making this software so people can download music, but are adding other file types to prevent suits. so, unless someone comes forward, i don't see how you can prove the creators intended on defrauding the riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone comes into your unlocked house, finds the key to a lockbox, and takes your properly stored gun, then goes off to shoot someone, you would not be held responsible. However, if that person then comes back and does the same thing every day for a year with your full knowledge, then you are criminally negligent at best, and I bet you'd end up being charged with 2nd degree murder.
The morpheus client, like the hypothetical gun, was a tool fully under morpheus' control. If they had wished to decrease illegal activity they certainly could have, but they made very little effort, and continued to sell advertising space which was paid for in no small part due to the popularity of illegal file sharing.
I am all for a world where file-sharing is open and free, but for morpheus to make the case that they were not responsible for any illegal activity on their site is pretty preposterous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the rest of you lunatics, you know perfectly well that everyone involved at Morpheus (just like everyone at Napster, Limewire, etc.) was perfectly aware of how their product was being used. Yet they made no attempt to discourage or prevent copyright infringement. This is in clear contast to car manufacturers, gun manufacturers, and even fast food restaurants these days, who at least provide warnings and discouragement to the misure of their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point isn't "did they try to stop it", the point is "did they have to try"... or, more accuratly, "how much did they have to have done to be considered to have tried". And they actually have warnings about copyright infringement on the installation pages and startup screens. It's all a question of where is the line drawn for "how much is enough".
As far as being perfectly aware... and I'll tie this in to the gun arguments...
The creator of the AK-47 created his weapon to protect his country. He wanted his people to have a superior weapon.
Now, his weapon is a mainstay of terrorists, third-world guerillas, and religious extremists all around the world (due to it's reliability, availability, and low cost).
The creator of this gun was perfectly aware that others could get a hold of his gun, and he was perfectly aware that it can be used for more than national defense. That doesn't mean that he is responsible for the atrocities done with his weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and how would morpheus decrese illegal activity? disallow any and all .mp3 files? or whould they chedk for drm'd files? well, if they did either of those, their product would suffer. so they should disallow any file with the name of copyrighted material? or should their program browse the file to make sure they aren't illegal?
well, if i have a file called metallica-song.mp3, it could be metallica, or somehting completely different. so buy intruding on their customers, they would lose them. and if they don't have customers, they are out of business. yes companies must do something, but they can't protect against all illegal activities. it's just not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's quit dancing around the point here
So what can we do? We have to outlaw people! And since this is America and we can't discriminate, we can't just outlaw stupid people, we have to outlaw every single person.
There. I said it, and I know you all were thinking it. Being a human has to be outlawed because some humans do bad things. Happy now? I'm gonna go turn myself in right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me
I mean how hard would it be subpoena the email, hardware etc.?
If it was their intention to do it I'm sure it’s mentioned somewhere In a memo.
I wish being intelligent and capable of CORRECT and LOGICAL thinking was a requirement for being a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Job, I love the legal system
This is going to be an ugly world soon: To hell with RIAA they are a bunch of money grubing no talent business men who don't actually know how to make money aside from stealing it from the wrong people.
That, and here goes creative license with software applications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheer speculation
We know nothing of this case nor what the overwhelming proof is.
If the judge determines that Morpheus induced illegal activity then that is just what it is.
To sit here and state otherwise is a waste of time.
If this is troubling, then yeah it is disturbing but only for the fact that the RIAA has another one-up on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have been bought and sold
Do not for a momement think this is a matter of precedent and law. This is about money, pure and simple.
...And America has the finest government, judicial system, and electoral process money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor, blind, Americans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeeeeeah......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]