A Federal court has granted summary judgment in favor of Grokster et al., ruling that it is legal to distribute these peer-to-peer file sharing tools.

More later, after I have had a chance to read the ruling.

Recently, the RIAA sued four college students for alleged copyright violations, including contributory infringement. The contributory infringement claims are based on assertions that the students ran search engines that can be used to find infringing files.

Jacques Distler asks this question: When will they sue Google? Certain parts of the RIAA’s complaint against the students could be reused with little or no modification in a suit against Google. For example, here is part of their compliant against Daniel Peng:

Defendant has installed, operates, and maintains a computer server that provides indexing and search processing functions for users of that LAN. Defendant’s server actively scours the network for files that others have designated for copying and distribution, and indexes the names of those files even without the knowledge or acquiescence of network users who have so designated those files, and without the consent of the copyright owners of the works embodied in those files. Defendant’s server intentories the music files each user has disgnated for copying and distribution, maintains a centralized index of the names of those music files, and makes that index available to users of the LAN. In this manner, files that a user maintains on his or her hard drive are made available for copying and distribution by all users of the LAN regardless of the intention of the users who initially designated those files, and often without their knowledge.

Defendant further has established and maintains an Internet site containing a copyright notice that is accessible over the World Wide Web at the URL http://wake.princeton.edu. By accessing that web site, users of the LAN search for and locate sound recordings that Defendant has indexed for copying and distribution by typing in search terms into a search window provided by Defendant. Results of the search are then returned to the user. These results include the file names of the sound recordings that match the search term and the location on the LAN of users’ computers that are making those sound recordings available for copying and distribution over the LAN. A user need only click on a particular search result, and the file containing the sound recording is automatically downloaded – i.e., copied and saved – directly from the offering user’s computer to the hard drive of the requesting user’s computer.

Substitute “Internet” for “LAN”, and change the URL to www.google.com, and this whole description applies to Google.

Distler also provides an example of how someone might use Google to find copyrighted music.

More information is now available about the lawsuits filed by RIAA yesterday against college students. Findlaw has copies of the complaints in the four suits.

complaint vs. Jesse Jordan [RPI student]
complaint vs. Joseph Nievelt [Michigan Tech student]
complaint vs. Daniel Peng [Princeton student]
complaint vs. Aaron Sherman [RPI student]

Direct and contributory infringement are claimed in all four cases.

Verizon has filed another brief (with supporting papers) in its battle with the RIAA, in Verizon’s continuing effort to protect the anonymity of one of its customers, who has been accused of copyright infringement. Verizon’s press release, with copies of the filings, is here.

(Thanks to Jim Tyre for the pointer.)

Here at Freedom to Tinker, we are relentless in our quest to bring you the finest in pseudo-journalism. And so when Frank Field lifted the lid on needlepoint piracy, our staff sprang into action to bring you an exclusive newsmaker interview with the ultimate insider source on this story, a source who was President of the authoritative American Needlepoint Guild (ANG) at the time the story first broke. This source, reached at an undisclosed location in the southwestern United States, will be identified only as “my mother.”

She writes:

The active needlepointers are generally members of [ANG] and its chapters. One of the things stressed on our [i.e., ANG’s] mail list (with more than 1200 needlepointers – not all members – but all active including designers, stitchers, shop owners, etc.), in our every other month magazine for members, with our chapters in their rules and regulations, and other places where we can – [is] that needlepoint charts and other materials from books, etc. can be copied only for your own personal use. They cannot be swapped.

[…]

Anyway, this article came out when I was President of ANG (at the end of my term) and caused quite a lot of discussion. [Swapping] is, and has always been, a problem – just think it may be among a wider group than previously because of the Internet. But among heavy users of patterns, I would suggest it is not commonly done. At least among the people I know, everyone is concerned about the decline in the number of stores selling these kinds of materials making it much more difficult to find patterns. For most people, attending a national seminar where a large store is available, or purchasing things by mail order or more likely on line, is what is happening now in the industry. Because we are trying to support the outlets still available for material, plus the manufacturers, many people are almost fanatics [about respecting copyright].

I would suggest that the decline in pattern sales for [some publishers] may be [because] there are fewer stores that carry their materials, and perhaps their patterns are not of such interest when you have no way to see the pattern in person.