or someone whose business is under attack in the United States Supreme Court, Mark Gorton was remarkably serene last week, sprawled on a couch in his Manhattan office. Posted on 03/28/2005 2:52:01 AM PST by infocats
Edited on 03/28/2005 3:23:38 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
or someone whose business is under attack in the United States Supreme Court, Mark Gorton was remarkably serene last week, sprawled on a couch in his Manhattan office.
Mr. Gorton's company, the Lime Group, publishes LimeWire, one of the most popular software programs used to trade music, video and other files over the Internet.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case in which the recording and film industries seek to hold makers of file-sharing software liable for the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted material online. The case is against other file-sharing services, Grokster and Morpheus, which won in lower courts, but Mr. Gorton said that if those rulings were overturned, it could make LimeWire vulnerable.
"If the Supreme Court says it is illegal to produce this software, LimeWire the company will cease to exist," Mr. Gorton said. "But LimeWire the software will continue to be on the Net no matter what we do in this business."
The case, M.G.M. v. Grokster, is in many ways the culmination of five years of escalating legal, technical and rhetorical attacks against file-sharing systems and their users by the music industry. It is being eagerly followed by a range of media and technology companies because the court may use this case to redefine the reach of copyright in the era of iPods and Tivo.
But no matter how the court rules, both music executives and file-sharing advocates like Mr. Gorton agree that it will probably always be possible for fans to find loads of free music with a few clicks of a mouse.
Still, the case will determine whether file sharing can continue to be promoted by companies like LimeWire and Sharman Networks, which makes Kazaa, that operate in public and earn profits from advertising and software sales, or whether the software will be written and distributed by shadowy players on the fringes of the law.
"I think this court decision is a game changer. It will dramatically affect behavior, and behavior will dramatically affect how music is sold and distributed and consumed," said Andrew Lack, chairman of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which releases music by stars like Usher and Bruce Springsteen. "It will clarify the law and establish right from wrong."
If the music industry loses, it will likely redouble its efforts to sue individuals trading files and intensify its technical efforts to disrupt the networks. So far, those tactics have been modestly effective at best, and a loss in the Supreme Court may well erode the industry's control of copyrighted material further.
Yet, since the court can do little to alter the spread of technology or the interests of copyright owners to protect their material, many expect something resembling a permanent war.
"We are guerrillas fighting the despotic regime," said Alan Morris, the executive vice president of Sharman Networks, the Australian company behind Kazaa, once the leading file-sharing network and the recording industry's leading target, which is being sued by the music industry in both American and Australian courts. "They have some quite heavy guns, but we can see where they are firing from, " Mr. Morris said.
There are some who say that a court ruling, in any direction, may also help define the terms of a cease-fire. The end of litigation could rekindle the back-channel negotiations between some music labels and some file-sharing services to create ways for users to trade some files free while paying for others..." Article continued here
Keep in mind, if the Supreme Court sides with Hollywood, Hollywood can then turn around and sue the OS and Hardware makers for have file-trading on their software and hardware. The lawyers for Hollywood will kill the tech market.
Is there any foreign law they can cite to hurt America here? Count on it.
This should be interesting.
Considering the internet as a whole could be considered one giant file-sharing program.
D'oh! i'm not going to like the outcome of this one.
The SC would basically have to overturn their previous ruling which held that manufacturers of VCRs were not liable for consumers who violate copyright by taping TV shows and movies.
The same logic could apply to copy machines that people use to make illegal copies of books etc.
Because of that I just don't see it happening.
Place the article in the appropriate space, leaving your comments for the space below the article. Thank you.
ping
Seriously, what would happen if the OS and Hardware produceres just pulled out of America and relocated somewhere else and slapped a sticker on their good saying file sharing can be harmful, would the importers then be responsible.
It just amazes me how the judicial system can continuously stifle industries.
It's not just the judicial system, it's the Treasury Departments also, which the IRS is part of.
The government will destroy the internet with regulations and BS. Count on it.
OS and hardware have nothing to do with file sharing.
That would be akin to bringing a space heater into your house, the house burning down, and then suing the builder of the house.
Hollywood lawyers won't kill the tech market, they'll just change the way that files (of any type) are traded.
The Internet has outgrown government control. This is recognized by Bush's reference in the debates to Internets (plural) and articles a couple months ago referring to a new DoD Internet being designed exclusively for military use. Any government that makes a concerted effort to control the Internet will ultimately fall from the response generated by those who oppose such oppression. I look for the ChiComs or the Iranian mullahs to be the first to learn this lessson.
Truthsearcher wrote: - "The SC would basically have to overturn their previous ruling which held that manufacturers of VCRs were not liable for consumers who violate copyright by taping TV shows and movies."
That is a pretty good precedent.
I'm sure the SC could find ways around it, but they could just as easily note the precedent, make an easy decision and move on.
Hollywood doesn't use logic, this is the same to of mentality that gun-control groups use to try to sure gun manufacturers for the crimes committed using the guns they make.
same to = same type
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.