[PLUG] fair use? (was Revolution OS)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> But didn't Napster pretty much lose?  I thought that they were given a
> list of songs that were not to be shared and had to comply.

It went something like this:

Recording industry sues Napster for "contributory copyright
infringement" and seeks restitution via massive cash awards and the
discontinuation of the company's primary service.

Napster prepares briefs for countersuits for harrassment and misuse of
copyright by the RIAA.

RIAA receives a "preliminary injunction" stopping Napster from running
their services until trial.  This is done simply by RIAA going to court
and claiming they are being damaged by the continuation of the
service.  But since there's no actual trial when an injunction is granted,
RIAA isn't required to show proof of said damages.

Napster appeals the injunction and shows evidence that the recording
industry has suffered ZERO damages since Napster began its services but
the pro-entertainment industry judge denies the appeal.

Napster can't afford to continue paying its employees, let alone highly
skilled legal consul, without being able to operate their business.  They
flounder and nearly close their doors.  BMG buys Napster and RIAA comes to
a "compromise" where artists can opt-out of Napster by supplying the
company with a list of songs that are banned.

Users resort to piglatin to bypass the filtering software, but the service
never really recovers.

The simple fact is that the Napster case never went to trial.  The RIAA
successfully shut the company down long enough to make it possible to buy
the thing.

The RIAA hasn't been as agressive against similar services because they
aren't backed by a company with money enough to bring a suit that would
destroy the RIAA cartel and the recording industry as they know it, as
Boies intended to do.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org