Subj : Should EMulation....
To   : Amcleod
From : Digital Man
Date : Fri Jun 09 2000 11:06 am

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Digital Man on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:19 pm

 >  > Because Naptster is simply a means of sharing MP3 files and not all MP3 f
 >  > are illegal to share (many artists, like Weedpuller, release MP3 files fo
 >  > for promotional reasons). There is certainly a hell of a lot more piracy 
 >  > on through FTP and HTTP servers, but you don't see anyone suing the maker
 >  > the FTP and HTTP server software.
 > 
 > Rob, you wrote (and are continuing to develop) the SBBS HTTP/FTP servers.  N
 > if I were to set up an HTTP/FTP server in (say) Boise, Idaho, and packed it
 > with MP3 tracks, (including Weedpuller tracks that your band has _NOT_ relea
 > to the public), would the copyright holders of the music in question have a
 > right to sue _you_ the author of the SBBS HTTP/FTP server?  In my opinion, t
 > answer is obviously NO.  However, wouldn't those artists whose music was bei
 > "pirated" (including Weedpuller) be entitled to sue _me_, the person who was
 > breaching your copyright?  Obviously YES.
 > 
 > Similarly, if _you_ were to offer an service that was instrumental in the
 > copyright violations, then you too would be liable.  Not for being the softw
 > author, but for being the service provider.

Napster itself is not really a "service provider" per se as they do not store
or transfer the MP3 files themselves (as an FTP or HTTP server would). They
write the client software and provide a directory service, but they do not have
direct control over what titles are listed in that directory. And more
importantly, they do not have specific directory entries for "Pirate MP3s" as
you would expect on an obviously infringing pirate FTP or HTTP site. Napster
does not facilitate the transfer of illegal MP3s any more than it does for
legal MP3s. This, I believe is the distinction.

There are thousands of pirated files transferred over IRC servers every day.
Should the operators of those IRC servers be held liable for what the users are
doing? I don't think so. 

Should AOL be held liable for the pedophiles that prey on AOL chat rooms? I
don't thik so. If they created a chat room specifically for "Men over 40 and
girls under 12", then someone might have a case against them, but there is
nothing analogous to this going on with Napster.

Rob

.