Hoping to nullify its lawsuits from Hollywood's music and movie companies, lawyers for MusicCity Tuesday are asking a California court to validate the legal uses of its Morpheus software.

The court's approval is key to Nashville-based MusicCity defense of its mega P2P file-sharing program. The company says it would certainly give it the leverage it needs in its legal battles.

On October 2, 2001, twenty-eight of the world's largest entertainment companies sued MusicCity for the infringing actions of users of its product (MGM et al v. Grokster et al, Case No. 01-CV-8541 SVW). MusicCity has requested a February 25 hearing before judge Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

Although referred to as MusicCity in the courts, StreamCast Networks is the company currently maintaining the Morpheus software product and MusicCity.com Web site.

Now coming to the aid of Music City is San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

EFF lead counsel Andrew Bridges argues that because people are now using, and will in the future use the Morpheus software to obtain and trade creative works legally the court should reject entertainment industry claims that the software has no significant purpose other than contributory copyright infringement.

Currently, Morpheus users can access other types of materials, including public domain texts from Project Gutenberg, "shareware" programs like the WinZip file compression software, films from the Prelinger Archive, music videos from Lil'Romeo and others distributed with permission by J!VE Media Technologies, and live concert recordings authorized by musicians.

The MusicCity legal team is basing its request to the court on the famous Sony Betamax case, in which the motion picture industry tried to outlaw VCRs. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even if some people use a new technology to infringe copyrights, that does not justify an outright ban on that technology.

LATEST NEWS

UCSD Plans First Flash-Based Supercomputer
Digging Into N.Y.'s Antitrust Suit Against Intel
Analyst: Sony-Ericsson's Android Bid Is Late
Coupon Site Targets Black Friday, Cyber Monday
Microsoft Sites Up Big in Time Spent Online

MusicCity also cites the Napster case, noting that the court held Napster liable based on Napster's operation of a centralized file-indexing service, but it never held Napster "liable for, or enjoined, creation or distribution of its software." In its ruling on Napster, the 9th Circuit warned, "To enjoin simply because a computer network allows for infringing use would, in our opinion, violate Sony and potentially restrict activity unrelated to infringing use."

"MusicCity's technology is the kind of technology protected under both the Betamax and Napster decisions - technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses that is turned over to the control of users," says Bridges. "The U.S. Supreme Court strongly upheld the principle that a beneficial technology cannot be banned just because users may abuse the technology."

MGM and the other litigants say 'pooh-pooh' to Music City's plight claiming that the company is "capable of controlling the activities of their users and the infringing digital files available through their network."

But the entertainment industry's concerns over copyright infringement and lost wages seem to be lost considering that the P2P file-sharing cat is out of the bag.

"The studios' legal attack against P2P is the latest battle in the industry's long war to kill any technology it cannot control," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney. "We shouldn't outlaw file-sharing programs simply because some people misuse them."