Posted on 06/27/2005 7:46:07 AM PDT by mathprof
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.
The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
At issue was whether the file-sharing services should be held liable even if they have no direct control over what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free. As much as 90 percent of songs and movies copied on the file-sharing networks are downloaded illegally, according to music industry filings.
The entertainment industry said it needed protection against the billions of dollars in revenue they lose to illegal swapping. Consumer groups worried that expanded liability will stifle the technology revolution of the last two decades that brought video cassette recorders, MP3 players and Apple's iPod.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Your not worth it. Continue believing what you want, but when FR is finally shutdown for sharing copyright material, don't come crying to me. Because I did warn you ahead of time.
In the U.S. -- I bet you that no other country, even the totalitarian ones, is going to make such an equally stupid move. Now not only is your home only until it catches the fancy of a developer, if you create a way to transfer data, then you are responsible for all data transferred that way!
good point
I believe 90% of material posted here is copyrighted -- and we need to 'excerpt' because FR has already been sued under the basis that this is not 'fair use'.
I don't know the whole ruling, but this does sound like exactly the same thing. They swap music files, we swap news stories.
The whole question now will be what 'evidence' does the court consider proof of 'intent'.
bttt
Indeed. Goodness knows what they would have ruled, but with what we are seeing done to the First and Fifth Amendments, it would have likely been the death knell for our Second Amendment.
Ah, good point.
I just freaked when I first read it.
Maybe it isn't as bad as I first thought.
I guess it will depend upon what the evidence has to be, since these companies all say not to use it for copyright violationi.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of rubes. I mean, we're just not sophisticated enough to understand that interstate commerce includes activities that involve neither commerce nor interestate movement.
We don't see the hidden meaning of the takings clause to where public use includes taking private property from one person and giving it to another because the latter party can generate more tax revenues than the former.
I hope I NEVER get that educated, to where the clear meaning of words no longer has any meaning.
Hardly.
Unless the auto manufacturer promotes the car as a getaway vehicle as shown by clear expression and other affirmative steps to encourge its use as getaway vehicle.
Not a logical comparison.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,"
The Supreme Court has decared war on the people of the USA.
Limewire is looking better all the time, although they clearly state their intent is NOT to bypass copyrights. OK. Neither is mine, I just want to play music, most of which I've bought several times already.
How are they going to sue international corporations? Isn't Kazaa from Holland or somewhere like that?
"Your Internet Explorer could be used to share files and break the law."
I can use Outlook, Yahoo, etc. to share files all day long. Those going to be illegal too?
Downloading music IS NOT the issue.
It seems what the Supreme Coyrt and everyone seems to overlook is the fact that EVERYTHING, be it documents, pictures, music, and movies are being turned into FILES.
This is the direction that the technology "parade" is, and has been going.
They are a little late trying to put the Genie back into the bottle.
Put an age limit....70 and out
Oh, please.
The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal. Theft of intellectual property is as real as theft of property, even though many FEEL they have the right to intellectual theft.
Those who INTENTIONALLY aid and abet this theft are themselves liable, that the way I interpret this verdict.
And by the way, I agree with it.
Well, since the Kelo decision says that the State can confiscate property for the betterment of the State because someone ELSE could better utilize said property, what makes you think "Intellectual Property" is secure from said confiscation?
Perhaps someone ELSE could better utilize an artists catalog...make more $$$ and increase tax revenues by better promoting/performing/marketing them?
I am a professional musician, and this is crap!
All this does is keep those DINOSAURS RIAA and BIG Music companies in power for a little longer.
The Internet and File-Sharing will allow musicians to promote self-recorded music WITHOUT the rediculously stilted contracts and exorbinant fees that these corrupt groups force the artists to pay.
THAT is what they fear most...that they will eventully be cut out of the loop!
As to your argument...it has been COMMON practice for YEARS for one to loan a friend an album/tape for them to make a copy of...hell Alcoholica (AKA Metallica) got it's START by fans trading bootlegs and causing a buzz!
The only REAL complaint is that due to computers and new technology, the QUALITY of the copies is equal to the original....THAT it what bugs them. The fact that your record/tape will wear out and you need to BUY another copy, versus a perfect replica that you can have at home, in a portable MP3, and in your car!
Tell me WHY a CD should cost so much, when CD-R's by the bundle are DIRT CHEAP? The ORIGINAL reason was that it was "new" technology...well, it's been 15 YEARS...the technology has PAID for itself, and has ADVANCED, yet they STILL demand an EXORBINANT price for the product!
It's because you can NOW rip a copy for yourself, and friends! It's ALL about the $$$ in the RECORD companies pocket...an artist RARELY gets more that 15 CENTS per copy sold! The REST goes to the CONTRACT holders! Artists RARELY get rich on record sales...the REAL money is in the Tours, Merchandise, and the band-owned copies of the records they sell at their shows WITHOUT the record company getting a piece of the action...if you see a band you like and want to help them make some REAL $$$, buy their vendor's t-shirts, and CD's!
Your arguments are for a Mastodon, stuck in a tar-pit and sinking, marveling at the warmth of the tar!
All that will happen is that the services will find a place outside the US to base their operations from that cannot be sued. People like to swap files and there is no way to stop it.
By the way, most of the services that offer free file swapping software loaded with spyware can be downloaded without the spyware for a small fee.
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.