Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UPI's The Peter Principles: Hardware vs. software
United Press International ^ | January 25, 2005 | Peter Roff

Posted on 01/25/2005 6:27:22 PM PST by PDR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is faced with the challenge of threading a very thorny needle now that the initial round of briefs in what has become known as the Grokster case has been submitted.

At issue is a U.S. 9th Circuit Court decision that failed to halt the distribution of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs that, according to some estimates, have been used to circulate millions of copies of pirated movies, songs and computer software.

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the companies that develop or provide peer-to-peer file-sharing programs should be held responsible for copyright infringements committed by the users of their products. The companies that produce content say they should. The providers of the peer-to-peer software, those that maintain file-sharing sites and the companies that manufacture consumer electronics, say they shouldn't.

So far the courts, relying on the 1984 Sony Betamax decision, have said they shouldn't. But, whether they realize it or not, the courts have been comparing apples and oranges because the peer-to-peer programs and sites are neither fish nor fowl.

In the Betamax case the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the developers, manufacturers or providers of a technology that was capable of substantial non-copyright-infringing uses could not be held liable if consumers use that technology in an infringing way.

If MGM vs. Grokster was about whether Fox or NBC/Universal or A&M Records could successfully sue Apple Computer or palmOne because their products -- like the iPod or the Palm Pilot -- were being used to view copy-protected material that had been pirated, then the 9th Circuit probably would be correct in saying that, based on the Betamax ruling, they couldn't. But that's not what this case is about.

More than one peer-to-peer Web site, some of which make money by selling ad space, encourages users to ship copy-protected materials around the Internet under the illusion it is free stuff. In one sense it is the information-technological equivalent of getting a good deal on a piece of merchandise that, in the language of the old neighborhood, "fell off the back of a truck."

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the folks who make the machines are on one side of the case while the folks who make the content are on the other. It is, for both sides, a matter of great economic interest.

The content manufacturers lose money each time someone uses a peer-to-peer program to send a pirated movie or piece of music to another person via the Internet. On the other hand, that same, seemingly free transfer creates a market for the cutting-edge technologies necessary to view or otherwise take advantage it. Greater demand leads to a higher volume of sales.

On an ethical level, it seems little different than going to a store and purchasing a state-of-the-art sound system in order to listen to hot compact music discs that somebody else shoplifted. The peer-to-peer programs and sites that facilitate or encourage infringement, indeed seem designed just for that purpose, should not be protected under the Betamax standard.

Who gets hurt? The content manufacturers, for one. Few people realize that cultural materials are among the United States' leading exports. The United States dominates the world market for movies and music, making it -- for good or for bad -- a cultural as well as economic and military superpower. The programs and Web sites that encourage, whether actively or tacitly, an infringing peer-to-peer exchange cause economic harm to one of the nation's leading industries. The fact that each transaction may constitute the loss of pennies must be seen in the context of how quickly those pennies add up when the Internet, with its global, exponential reach, is involved.

What is not as obvious but is no less real is the economic harm the machine manufacturers will, in the long run, also experience. If the abundance of quality content, legal and otherwise, drives the development and sale of new devices, than a decline in quality or availability will lead to a decline in the demand for new devices needed to enjoy that content.

The solution, however, is not to ban peer-to-peer technology, as some have suggested; the solution is to go after those whose business models depend on its use to infringe on someone else's copyright.

The peer-to-peer folks have cleverly pitted the content end and the component end against each other while finding safe harbor in the middle. The component manufacturers and the content developers should realize the need exists for them to strike a delicate balance. A DVD is no good without a way to view it; a blank screen is not the most entertaining thing to stare at for 90 minutes. Each needs the other to survive and to thrive.

--

(The Peter Principles explores issues in national and local politics, U.S. culture and the media. It is written by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene. Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: filesharing; grokster; intellectualproperty; peterroff; supremecourt; upi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 01/25/2005 6:27:22 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PDR

I got my popcorn. Gonna sit back and watch this thread.


2 posted on 01/25/2005 6:29:32 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

I'll join you.


3 posted on 01/25/2005 6:31:17 PM PST by Rex Anderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PDR

It really comes down to whether when the consumer buys the DVD, or music do they own that copy and can do with it as they like for personal use. Or does the consumer just rent the content and is buying the media?

I will watch what the court does because if they side with the RIAA and others then most of the technology from Apple to the PC's we are typing on today contain illegal hardware and programs making the companies liable.


4 posted on 01/25/2005 6:51:43 PM PST by kimbermatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimbermatic

the technology products you describe have, as the Betamax case said, substantial non-infringing uses... that is why this is apples and oranges. When you buy a DVD you are -- n effect -- licensing the material contained on it for personal use. You are, as a practical matter, not permitted to make a business out of redistributing that material to other people -- for free or for gain, which is what the exchange of files is effectvely -- at the expense of the true owner of the copy protected materials.


5 posted on 01/25/2005 6:54:52 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PDR
The content manufacturers lose money each time someone uses a peer-to-peer program to send a pirated movie or piece of music to another person via the Internet

False. If it weren't free, many viewers/listeners would not get the content at all. To say otherwise is to ignore basic economics, supply and demand.

6 posted on 01/25/2005 6:55:10 PM PST by thoughtomator (Favorite Dish: Spotted Owl Teriyaki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

No. True. The exchange deprives the content makers of the revenue due them as owners of the material... whether that material would be purchased if not available for free (as it likely would be in more than a few instances) is irrelevent. What you are suggesting is that it is okay to steal something if you wouldn't but it in the marketplace because -- otherwise -- it would sit on the shelf unsold and, either way, the company doesn't realize a return on the item.


7 posted on 01/25/2005 6:58:34 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PDR

I'm not at all saying it's ok - don't impute. I am saying that there is a segment of people that will not spend money on things that they would view/listen to if they could get it free. In these cases, no money would go to the content authors and you can't lose money that doesn't exist.


8 posted on 01/25/2005 7:01:24 PM PST by thoughtomator (Favorite Dish: Spotted Owl Teriyaki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PDR
not permitted to make a business out of redistributing that material to other people -- for free or for gain

If you doing it for free then how can it be a business?

9 posted on 01/25/2005 7:04:07 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PDR

Confusing article. Hardware manufacturers should not be confused with P2P site owners and users. And content creators should not be confused with the RIAA and MPAA.


10 posted on 01/25/2005 7:05:00 PM PST by Uncle Fud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

to follow that forward then, and i do not as a practical matter accept the logic of your example, the existance of the kind of people you describe distort the behavior of the marketplace, thus it would be irrational for the content providers to continue in business -- markets, remember, are ratonal.


11 posted on 01/25/2005 7:05:15 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PDR
The content manufacturers lose money each time someone uses a peer-to-peer program to send a pirated movie or piece of music to another person via the Internet.

This is untrue. They may lose what would have been a sale, but they do not lose money. Potential money is not real money.

Let's look at "potential" money. Say if Jake steals next week's lottery ticket from Sam, could Sam sue for the jackpot -- or just for the purchase price? If we use "potential sale" theory the value stolen is the whole of the jackpot.

12 posted on 01/25/2005 7:05:21 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup

there is still a transaction involved... no money changes hands but items of value are exchanged


13 posted on 01/25/2005 7:06:29 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PDR; thoughtomator
Thoughtometer did not state whether the companies were due the money, only that they were deprived of money they would have gotten had the file downloading been impossible.

It was disingenuous for Lotus to have claimed a loss of billions of dollars on Lotus 1-2-3 in the 1980's because pimply teenagers had made copies of it when there was no chance in Hades they could have coughed up the $300 for the product. The real loser in software piracy is not the Microsofts and Adobes of the world, but the would-be low-priced competitors who would never get a chance because so many who would have bought the low-cost product hust pirated the high-priced one.

In any event, all of the numbers of lost revenue is completely made up. There is no good way to know how much money would have been spent on these products if these downloads were impossible.
14 posted on 01/25/2005 7:07:37 PM PST by sittnick (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud

as to your first point only, the consumer electronics folks have sided with the p2p folks... that may be what has confused the issue


15 posted on 01/25/2005 7:07:38 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PDR
there is still a transaction involved... no money changes hands but items of value are exchanged

But 'exchange' requires you to get something in return, which is not the case.

16 posted on 01/25/2005 7:07:53 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bvw

not if it is a losing ticket


17 posted on 01/25/2005 7:08:35 PM PST by PDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PDR

If I am "licensing the material contained on it for personal use" then making a backup copy for my personal use, or transferring that material to a portable player for my personal use, should be non-infringing usages by definition. Unfortunately, that has not yet been legally established.


18 posted on 01/25/2005 7:11:12 PM PST by Uncle Fud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PDR

No, it would just be irrational for them to continue to do business in the assinine way they currently do.


19 posted on 01/25/2005 7:11:19 PM PST by thoughtomator (Favorite Dish: Spotted Owl Teriyaki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bvw

It also needs to be said that if you apply the **AA's logic in other scenarios, real problems start popping up. For example, should firearm manufacturers be prosecuted each time somebody uses a gun in an illegal manner? Their products have both legal and illegal uses. It's up to the product user, not the manufacturer to bear the responsibility for illegal use.


20 posted on 01/25/2005 7:11:26 PM PST by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson