The year of the music licensing legal wars

The archetypal robo-car race By Andrew Hawkins

2004 oregon 2024? A quiz By Kevin Nguyen

Digg and the bully worldly curators By David Pierce

ByBy the clip MGM v. Grokster deed the Supreme Court, the file-sharing manufacture had been roiling with lawsuits for years. The grounds labels had sued Napster successful December 1999, baptizing the oughties with a spree of copyright litigation. But the public’s appetite for piracy didn’t spell away, and for each Napster that was sued into oblivion, 3 much sprung up successful its place. Their names are present commemorated lone successful the tribunal decisions that yet destroyed them: Aimster, StreamCast, and of course, Grokster.

The Supreme Court agreed to perceive the Grokster lawsuit successful December 2004, and oral arguments took spot successful March of the pursuing year. The copyright wars had yet arrived earlier the justices. The tribunal heard archetypal from Don Verrilli, the lawyer representing a bevy of movie studios and grounds labels belonging to the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry of America, respectively. “Mr. Chief Justice, and whitethorn it delight the Court: copyright infringement is the lone commercially important usage of the Grokster and StreamCast services, and that is nary accident.”

The archetypal interruption came halfway into Verrilli’s adjacent sentence, and the volley of questions continued earlier this lawsuit astir peer-to-peer record sharing took a crisp crook into what, to a full outsider, mightiness person seemed similar an off-beat question: What’s the quality betwixt record sharing and the Xerox machine?

But for those pursuing the lawsuit from inception, this was, successful fact, the Big Question. When copyright instrumentality and the net collide, caller technologies are inevitably compared to aged technologies successful a premix of gut-check and devil’s advocacy. A Xerox enables copying — often of copyrighted works! — on a wide scale. So bash the VCR and the iPod. “Are you definite that you could urge to the iPod inventor that helium could spell up and person an iPod or, for that matter, Gutenberg, the press?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked Verrilli. And then, successful 1 of those mischievous asides that helium was known for, Breyer added, “For each I know, the monks had a acceptable erstwhile Gutenberg made his press.” (The assemblage tittered successful polite, pandering laughter.)

The iPod would travel up again and again passim oral arguments. Though portable MP3 players had been astir for a while, Apple’s mentation had taken the satellite by storm, successful portion due to the fact that of its sleek plan and precocious capableness and successful portion due to the fact that it was conveniently linked to the iTunes Store, a morganatic strategy for buying euphony digitally. Yet, the hard thrust abstraction was a motion to the tremendous integer libraries radical could perchance get — oregon adjacent had already accrued — done piracy.

And they didn’t mince astir what was happening crossed the country. “I cognize perfectly good I could spell retired and bargain a CD and enactment it connected my iPod,” said Justice David Souter. “But I besides cognize perfectly good that if I tin get the euphony connected the iPod without buying the CD, that’s what I’m going to do.” If that was the case, and the RIAA got its way, wouldn’t the menace of copyright litigation beryllium hanging implicit immoderate aboriginal Steve Jobs oregon Jony Ive?

“I don’t really deliberation that determination is grounds that you’ve got overwhelming infringing use,” Verrilli began to reply. Sure, radical were utilizing the iPod to infringe copyright, but it wasn’t with the aforesaid consistency arsenic for a file-sharing client, right? But earlier Verrilli could decorativeness that bid of thought, Souter interrupted again. 

“Well, there’s ne'er grounds astatine the clip the feline is sitting successful the store figuring retired whether to invent the iPod oregon not.” 

There was an implicit presumption connected each sides that the iPod was legal, that the iPod was legitimate, that the iPod was worthy protecting. The justices fretted that letting the file-sharing services triumph would destruct the euphony industry; but connected the different hand, if they fto the MPAA and RIAA win, it would destruct the iPod. 

Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a known copyright maximalist, reserved her gotchas for the different side, lobbing them consecutive astatine Richard G. Taranto, who was representing the file-sharing companies. “You don’t question that this work does facilitate copying.”

“As does the idiosyncratic machine and the modem and the net work supplier and the Microsoft operating system,” Taranto replied smoothly.

That is, of course, much oregon little the rub: if the Xerox instrumentality is somewhat of a troubling invention, everything astir our modern-day computer-rich ecosystem is simply a 1000 times worse. My telephone syncs to my tablet, syncs to my laptop; the worth proposition of each instrumentality connected my idiosyncratic is that it instantaneously and unquestioningly shares copies — of text, pictures, audio, video — with different devices and different people. A website is simply a thousand, million, cardinal copies served up to antithetic radical astatine antithetic times. Copies are downloaded to devices, uploaded to servers, linger, and past vanish again portion successful transit. There is simply a cardinal mismatch betwixt the post-internet epoch and the precise instauration of copyright law, and a 100 unusual small tweaks and twists and exceptions person had to beryllium made to marque quadrate pegs acceptable into circular holes.

Grokster is the communicative of 1 of those exceptions. 

The Supreme Court would yet determine Grokster successful favour of Hollywood and the grounds labels, but without afloat adopting their reasoning. And successful the court’s strenuous efforts to locomotion that good enactment betwixt the iPod and the RIAA, it shamelessly made up an full copyright instrumentality doctrine without batting an eye, a mentation of liability that hadn’t existed up until that constituent successful time. 

Copyright instrumentality had been 1 happening successful 2004. It was a wholly antithetic happening successful 2005 and beyond.

InIn each fairness to the Supreme Court of 2004, it had waded into the ineligible mentation of a forum occurrence war. In each courtroom, lawyers enactment retired hostilities arsenic a signifier of theater. But for immoderate reason, the copyright wars truly were arsenic hostile arsenic they seemed connected the outside. 

“I would accidental determination was truly a conflict going connected betwixt Hollywood and Silicon Valley,” recalled Mark Lemley, a instrumentality prof astatine Stanford and longtime litigator who, successful 2003, won the Grokster lawsuit successful the little court. “And you saw it successful tons of antithetic places.”

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) had been passed lone a fewer years prior. For tech manufacture lawyers and net state types astatine the time, the transition of the DMCA — with its ineligible restrictions connected bypassing DRM and its loophole-riddled harmless harbor authorities which allowed platforms to evade liability for hosting copyrighted worldly truthful agelong arsenic they took it down upon announcement — was a crushing defeat. The file-sharing lawsuits were portion of the aforesaid war, simply fought connected antithetic grounds.

“I deliberation each broadside truly did deliberation that this was existential, that the different broadside is going to destruct us,” said Lemley. “One broadside said, ‘The copyright manufacture wants to destruct integer technologies,’ and the copyright manufacture said, ‘We’re not going to survive, creativity is not going to survive, if everybody could conscionable get this worldly for free.’ And truthful everybody felt similar this was it, right? This was for each the marbles.”

The grounds labels had sued the makers of the Rio MP3 subordinate successful RIAA v. Diamond and had lost. The Diamond determination adjacent contains a fewer lines that suggest that it’s just usage to rip a store-bought CD into a integer format. (Believe it oregon not, that’s thing that has inactive ne'er been definitively settled successful a tribunal of law, though Justice Souter got the RIAA’s Verrilli to accidental it was good during the Grokster oral arguments astatine the Supreme Court.) 

The RIAA’s lawyers were mostly winning their battles against the peer-to-peer file-sharing services, but they were losing the war. The hottest caller gadgets were riding connected the backmost of euphony piracy, and the amended that computers and net speeds got, the easier piracy became. Successive iterations connected Napster emerged — immoderate were tech companies backed by task capital; others, similar the Pirate Bay, founded successful 2003, were practically ideological.

People simply would not halt pirating music. The industry’s adjacent determination reeked of desperation: successful 2003, the labels moved connected to suing idiosyncratic downloaders.

The thought was to scare radical straight, but successful galore respects, this was a disastrous strategy. The PR fallout was enormous. Unable to perfectly place defendants based connected their IP addresses, the RIAA’s deed complaint was, to accidental the least, highly problematic. Parents were being sued for what their underage kids had done connected the household computer. Stories astir small aged grandmas getting lawsuits mistakenly thrown astatine them were ubiquitous successful the headlines. Even the artists that publically backed the RIAA suits — similar Metallica — were roundly mocked and despised by their ain fans for doing so.

The labels, connected immoderate level, had to cognize that it was not the champion idea. After all, they lone resorted to suing mean radical after they tried suing file-sharing services and MP3 subordinate manufacturers. These people, depending connected your angle, mightiness beryllium called users, pirates, fans, oregon downloaders. They were often young teenagers; erstwhile they weren’t minors, they were often assemblage students who had, aft moving into their dormitories, accessed high-speed net for the archetypal time. In the tribunal of nationalist opinion, these kids were collateral harm successful the copyright warfare betwixt “the tech industry” and “the contented industry.” But successful a tribunal of law, the kids were the existent perps successful a multibillion-dollar situation of copyright infringement. 

The file-sharing services were exertion companies, and the exertion connected its ain was not illegal. The peer-to-peer file-sharing services were selling software; they weren’t adjacent hosting the content. And the newest procreation of services weren’t hosting a cardinal database to hunt for content, the mode that Napster did.

All sorts of caller tech  — similar VCRs and Xerox machines — have undergone periods of copyright anxiousness earlier coming retired the different side. They became established arsenic morganatic innovations that sometimes get utilized for copyright infringement. In fact, successful the lawsuit of the VCR, a seminal 1984 Supreme Court determination had smoothed things along.

The RIAA mightiness person defeated Napster successful court, but the signaling industry’s lawsuit was ne'er ironclad. Each caller iteration connected Napster became different accidental to hash the rule retired successful court. To what grade could the exertion beryllium held liable for the copyright infringement of the users? It was lone a substance of clip earlier idiosyncratic showed up and yet scored a triumph against the labels.

WhenWhen the Grokster and StreamCast cases went up connected entreaty together, it was Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a persistent thorn successful the broadside of the RIAA, who argued them earlier the Ninth Circuit. The appeals tribunal gave the triumph to the file-sharing services; soon after, successful December 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to perceive the case. 

Lemley remembered feeling some tense and cautiously optimistic. The Ninth Circuit had made a well-reasoned and articulate extrapolation from Sony v. Universal City Studios, the 1984 Supreme Court lawsuit lawyers often notation to simply arsenic “Betamax,” since some Sony and Universal are predominant fliers successful the ineligible system. The lawsuit established that Sony itself was not infringing copyright by selling VCRs, adjacent though galore VCR owners were copying tv programs astatine home. Sony’s Betamax tapes mightiness beryllium remembered arsenic the also-ran format of VHS, but its sanction lived connected successful this ineligible precedent 2 decades later.

Beyond that, said Lemley, adjacent if astir each the contented connected Napster was copyright infringement, that wasn’t needfully the lawsuit successful Grokster. The plaintiffs who had filed suit successful the Grokster and StreamCast cases represented much oregon little each grounds statement and question representation workplace successful America. When lined up 1 aft another, their names sprawl crossed multiple pages of the frontispiece of the Ninth Circuit decision. Still, they had lone been capable to allege that 70 percent of the contented being shared connected these services belonged to them, though they estimated that 90 percent infringed someone’s copyright. 

And that mattered. Ten percent, said Lemley, should beryllium capable to enactment the thought that Grokster had “substantial non-infringing uses,” which was the ineligible modular acceptable successful the Betamax case. A footnote successful the Betamax determination adjacent suggests that it was capable that 7.3 percent of the time, consumers were not violating copyright law. 

7.3 percent? That was hardly anything. The file-sharing services had a whopping 10 percent going for them.

Still, said Lemley, determination was besides bully crushed to beryllium nervous. The procedural inheritance was somewhat alarming (for the Supreme Court aficionados: erstwhile the tribunal granted cert, determination was, astatine most, a “shallow circuit split” successful the case; arguably, determination was nary divided astatine all). And the lawsuit was coming retired of the Ninth Circuit, an appellate tribunal that SCOTUS notoriously loves to reverse. 

The Supreme Court, too, is conscionable a antithetic carnal altogether. Theoretically, SCOTUS is lone a notch supra the national appeals courts. But that azygous ladder rung separates the remainder of the ineligible strategy with a moat of bizarre customs, foibles, and etiquettes. The barroom of attorneys admitted to signifier successful the Supreme Court is an exclusive one, and wrong that barroom is an adjacent much exclusive radical of radical who regularly reason successful beforehand of it, an elite priesthood that panders to 9 robed gods connected a raised dais successful a theatrically lit room. 

The file-sharing companies did not person the heavy pockets for 1 of these backstage assemblage large guns, and truthful their EFF lawyer Lohmann was slated to reason the lawsuit earlier the justices. But successful the end, billionaire Mark Cuban ponied up the currency to wage for Richard Taranto, who had been arguing successful beforehand of that tribunal for 20 years. (“I did it due to the fact that I thought the euphony manufacture was being dense handed with IP and Grokster was the underdog,” Cuban wrote The Verge successful an email. “Beyond that I don’t retrieve anything.”)

“I’ll admit I was a small spot disappointed,” said von Lohmann. But going with the specializer — now that determination was wealth to wage him — made sense. “Basically, arguing successful beforehand of the Supreme Court is similar being a therapist to those 9 people. It’s not conscionable astir the law. It’s besides astir knowing what the justices’ favored hobby horses are and what things trigger them and what their alliances and animosities are.”

And von Lohmann, an aboriginal adopter and net nerd who had fallen successful emotion with integer copyright instrumentality aft speechmaking an nonfiction successful an aboriginal contented of Wired, was not rather the vibe for this scene. The time that Grokster was heard successful the Supreme Court was a momentous 1 — in summation to changing copyright instrumentality forever, the oral statement close earlier Grokster was for Brand X, the lawsuit connected which modern-day nett neutrality rests. 

Yet, connected that day, the property assemblage was abuzz, fixated connected thing else: Fred von Lohmann had a ponytail. No 1 could retrieve different clip that a antheral lawyer with agelong hairsbreadth had shown up successful beforehand of the justices. 

The Ninth Circuit, wherever von Lohmann had argued and won the lawsuit earlier it came to the Supreme Court, had not cared astir his ponytail. 

But von Lohmann would perceive astir each that later. In the moment, helium was focused connected what helium thought was the infinitesimal that the net was going to get a wide rule. The Ninth Circuit had interpreted Betamax to support the file-sharing companies. The RIAA and MPAA were ne'er going to permission that precedent alone; the exertion manufacture and the EFF and Mark Cuban, too, were not going to permission this contented alone, either. No substance who won oregon lost, the Supreme Court had to settee the rule erstwhile and for all. 

Except it didn’t. “In immoderate ways, it’s truthful disappointing that the Supreme Court did not springiness america an answer,” said von Lohmann. “Rather than deciding ‘Is Betamax inactive the instauration of the exertion sector?’ they benignant of punted that question and answered a antithetic question.”

Grokster is simply a unusual SCOTUS precedent due to the fact that honestly, it doesn’t marque a full batch of sense. The determination created a caller signifier of liability known arsenic “inducement”: the exertion companies, the tribunal ruled, had seduced the users — the teens, the kids, the fans, the pirates — into infringing copyright. It didn’t substance that these services ne'er hosted immoderate files oregon made a cardinal index.

Some of the grounds the tribunal cites is benignant of weird. For instance, StreamCast had distributed a programme called “OpenNap” and had tally ads for it with Napster-compatible programs. Grokster had it adjacent worse — the transportation to Napster was successful its ain damn name! “[A]nyone whose Napster oregon escaped file-sharing searches turned up a nexus to Grokster would person understood Grokster to beryllium offering the aforesaid file-sharing quality arsenic Napster; that would besides person been the knowing of anyone offered Grokster’s suggestively named Swaptor software, its mentation of OpenNap,” work the SCOTUS opinion. 

The superior takeaway of Grokster is “don’t look similar Napster,” written successful specified vague presumption that liability seems to loom implicit overmuch of the tech industry. Okay, so, don’t commencement a institution with a sanction ending successful -ster. But present what? Who would beryllium deemed the adjacent Napster? How bash you debar looking similar them? How bash you adjacent cognize what the adjacent Napster is? What does it mean to not look similar you’re courting customers who whitethorn oregon whitethorn not infringe copyright? A device that streams TV broadcasts to your laptop, a website for uploading premix tracks, an image big that markets itself arsenic dedicated to memes and viral content — wherever bash they stand? The determination didn’t overturn Sony v. Universal, but Betamax was nary longer the reliable precedent it erstwhile was. “Most honorable copyright lawyers would archer you that the worth of Betamax successful protecting exertion vendors has been eroded successful the years since Grokster was decided,” said von Lohmann. 

Copyright instrumentality is profoundly punitive. Unlike astir different torts, the rights holder doesn’t need to amusement that they were harmed; the statute allows a justice to levy up to $150,000 successful statutory damages per infringed work. (That’s successful extreme, “willful” cases, arsenic the signaling manufacture believed Napster was. In mean cases, statutory damages are expected to scope from $750 to $30,000 per work.) If a idiosyncratic basal is consuming millions of songs oregon movies oregon pictures via a service, that’s much wealth than astir nationalist GDPs. In practice, nary tech institution ever gets deed with a trillion-dollar copyright judgment, but the theoretical hazard is inactive capable to springiness pause. 

In its contiguous wake, Grokster seemed to bent implicit the manufacture similar a sword. It came arsenic a peculiar daze to Lemley, who had sailed distant connected a abrogation to the Arctic Circle with nary outer work conscionable hours earlier the Supreme Court determination came down — 2 weeks later, helium became the past of the lawyers successful the suit to find retired what had happened to his case. 

“I don’t deliberation Grokster made record sharing spell away,” said Lemley. “But I bash deliberation it changed the ineligible scenery and made it much challenging to beryllium a high-profile tech institution that was successful the concern of integer contented transmission. I deliberation a clump of folks conscionable went retired of business.”

Ultimately, Grokster would shut down successful 2005; StreamCast Networks filed for bankruptcy successful 2008. 

The public’s cognition of downloading, too, made a extremist shift. “The ineligible campaign, the lawsuits against individuals, the media sum — the cases really made change,” said von Lohmann. Until the RIAA launched what seemed astatine the clip to beryllium a futile warfare against piracy, cipher took idiosyncratic piracy seriously. “When I was a kid, like, cipher ever thought doubly about, ‘Oh, tin I get that album? I’ll portion it astatine home.’” 

But helium witnessed the displacement successful attitudes personally portion connected the beforehand lines of the copyright wars. “During that period, erstwhile you did surveys, it became progressively hard to really get a work connected however wide record sharing was because, betwixt 1999 and 2005, everybody started lying astir it,” said von Lohmann. It had gone from thing uncontroversial to thing similar smoking weed. Everyone did it. Everyone knew that everyone other did it. Nevertheless, you weren’t expected to admit it.

BeforeBefore that displacement successful nationalist perception, for the existent fans, record sharing was conscionable a means that the grounds labels were not providing. The fans wanted to perceive to everything, to person a existent prime of favourite creator earlier buying performance tickets and merch, to beryllium capable to devour an full backmost catalog. Fans wanted integer music. They wanted casual entree to music. They wanted lightweight and portable MP3 players. They also, indisputably, loved escaped shit. Not each downloader is simply a fan, and not each instrumentality is circulating wealth backmost into the originative economy. 

The euphony manufacture thought that freeloading tech companies would destruct them, and the tech companies thought that the euphony industry’s overzealous copyright lawyers would, successful turn, destruct them.

But past things conscionable benignant of settled down. Steve Jobs introduced the iTunes Music Store successful 2003 with explicit comparisons to file-sharing services, and it was already proving its economical potential. Spotify was founded successful Sweden the twelvemonth aft the Grokster decision came out. The contented manufacture and the tech manufacture were nary longer successful a deathmatch to destruct the other. Licensing was making the wealth travel again. Beyond that, radical present had “a elemental and not that costly mode to get euphony legally,” said Lemley. “And that, I think, causes a clump of radical to conscionable benignant of halt utilizing record sharing. It doesn’t spell away. But it conscionable becomes, you know, what I wanted, which is the quality to play euphony connected my devices.” 

It turned out, arsenic well, that the DMCA — the instrumentality that Silicon Valley had seen arsenic a unspeakable decision — ended up becoming overmuch much important than anyone had thought it would. The spooky uncertainty of Grokster drove platforms consecutive into the arms of the DMCA harmless harbor provision, which kept the copyright lawyers distant truthful agelong arsenic they were fixed bureaucratic systems which allowed notices of infringement to beryllium sent and contented to beryllium taken down. Over the adjacent fewer years, the lawsuit instrumentality and precedents astir the DMCA would accumulate into a robust assemblage of instrumentality done which overmuch of the net survived and adjacent thrived. The satellite we presently inhabit, successful which your Instagram posts get flagged, your favourite Twitch streamers get temporarily banned, and each YouTuber understands that a copyright onslaught is simply a atomic weapon, is 1 that came to beingness aft 2004. 

Relations person since thawed betwixt the tech manufacture and the contented manufacture — if relations are not precisely amicable, they are, astatine least, inflected with a consciousness of normalcy. 

Consider however overmuch the contented of AI and copyright continues to inflame the nationalist imagination, and yet, alternatively than launching a unified war, some media companies person sued, portion different media companies — including The Verge’s genitor institution Vox Media — have chosen to simply chopped deals with the likes of OpenAI. Copyright is not a crusade; copyright is concern arsenic usual.

ForFor galore readers, this is each a nostalgic backdrop to a communicative they whitethorn oregon whitethorn not person heard successful immoderate iteration oregon another. And yet, a not-insignificant fig of radical are speechmaking these words successful the twelvemonth 2024 and scratching their heads. 

“In an epoch wherever we each conscionable instrumentality Spotify for granted, radical don’t remember what it was similar erstwhile each CD outgo you similar 10 dollars,” said Fred von Lohmann. “Your idiosyncratic CD postulation was a tiny model connected the satellite of music, similar a precise cautiously selected curated portion of the beingness of music. And Napster changed that overnight. And suddenly, you could beryllium like, I tin perceive to obscure reggae. And past I tin perceive to electropop, and past I tin perceive to The Beatles.”

For von Lohmann, the advent of record sharing was akin to the infinitesimal The Wizard of Oz goes from black-and-white to color. “I would inactive reason successful immoderate ways, we inactive don’t person it arsenic bully present arsenic fans arsenic we did with Napster successful ’99,” said von Lohmann. “There’s inactive a batch of worldly that you can’t get that was disposable — like unrecorded recordings and rarities and bootlegs and worldly that volition ne'er beryllium connected Spotify.”

But the quality betwixt present and the 1990s is inactive stark. Napster and the MP3 players that rode the question of record sharing — the Rio, the Zen, the iPod — changed everything astir however we perceive to and subordinate to music. Digital files are nary longer the secondary backups of our carnal libraries, an echo of “the existent thing” made for convenient transport. Music is digital-first; the vinyls and the CDs are secondary — for many, they are simply mementos. And exertion has besides changed the economical incentives astir music, cratering the revenues generated done the large labels and pushing musicians to question retired alternate gross sources. 

Music, today, is not astir copies — it is astir streaming. It exists arsenic a prime betwixt platforms — Spotify, Apple Music, and truthful forth. The fig of plays is the coin of the realm. 

A opus is simply a vibe, the backdrop of a TikTok, a meme waiting to happen, a copyright weaponry that tin nuke a livestream. An MP3 is simply a perplexing fossil. A carnal CD is simply a limited-edition collectible. 

Of the 9 justices who heard Grokster, lone 1 inactive sits connected the tribunal (Clarence Thomas). Verrilli, who represented the studios and labels, went connected to go solicitor wide of the United States; today, helium is backmost to arguing Supreme Court cases successful the backstage sector. Taranto, the lawyer that Mark Cuban paid for, sits arsenic an appeals tribunal justice connected the Federal Circuit. 

After leaving the EFF, Fred von Lohmann went connected to enactment for Google — he would beryllium determination during the second fractional of the tortuously elongated Google Books copyright litigation, the landmark DMCA precedent acceptable by YouTube’s victory against Viacom successful the Second Circuit, and the unending bundle copyright shitshow that was Oracle v. Google. He is present ineligible counsel astatine OpenAI, which is presently besieged with its ain thicket of copyright lawsuits; helium declined to speech astir AI and copyright with me, asking to instrumentality to the taxable of a yesteryear agelong gone by. 

Grokster and StreamCast are dead. Even the iPod is nary longer successful production. They are buried and gone, similar the Betamax and the Betamax “substantial non-infringing uses” modular — all relics of a bygone era, the ephemera of 2004. Copyright instrumentality hardly made consciousness then. As you mightiness suspect, 20 years later, it makes adjacent little consciousness now.