Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued

ap ^ | 6/26/05 | HOPE YEN

[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.

[Dominic Harr]

for those unfamilar with "fair use", do a Google search.

I don't understand something, apparently -- I thought that the Times case settlement was because it was clear that 'fair use' was not a defense in our case, hence the need to excerpt?

And that still doesn't address all the other entities we post from who haven't gotten around to suing us yet . . .

It seems this decision means we better start excerpting *everything*, or else. Am I wrong?

[Quick1]

How long until they rule that you can sue gun manufacturers, as well?

[Quick1]

Screw everyone else and their rights, it's good for you!

[Freebird Forever]

It's all in how you sell the thing, now.

Hmmm.

Interesting interpretation.

Sort of like "this pipe is for tobacco smoking only".

; )

[tm22721]

This ruling will have no effect.

All file sharing software is based upon technology known as 'peer-to-peer' protocol spawned in academia long ago.

Even the Supremes can't rule shareware based upon a particular network protocol to be illegal.

BUMP

[Freebird Forever]

How are they going to sue international corporations?

I was wondering that question myself.

If the file sharing program is downloaded from a server located offshore, like Gaza or the PRC, who gets served with the papers?

[CedarDave]

I continue to believe FR is o.k. with excerpting, though I believe copying whole articles is better for posterity. If the NY Times denies FR use of excerting, then FR would either have to comply or fight it in court. A precedent was set with the district court's discussing what is permitted while prohibiting full verbatim copying of copyrighted material.

[CFC__VRWC]

We'll see. Personally, I think this Supreme Court ruling is only the opening shot in a long campaign by the government and the media to set very strict limits on what information and speech on the Internet will be deemed legitimate.

[CedarDave]

There were a couple of reasons FR did not prevail in the lawsuit, including one that FR was perceived (or was) a commercial for-profit entity at the time. Also, the court did not buy the argument that full-text copying was necessary for posterity. FR puts a magazine/newspaper on its excerpt only list if requested by them.

I just read the whole FR decision again. Give the tenor of the current court decision, I don't have a clue if we would win if we tried to fight excerpt prohibition. But the settlement with the LA Times is a good starting point that 300 words does not financially harm them.

[CedarDave]

If applied to the "fair use" doctrine for print media, I agree with you.

[CFC__VRWC]

What they'll probably do with this is to continue going after the users of P2P software, and use it to further intimidate them into settling for a few thousand dollars.

[afnamvet]

Bump!

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What's the difference between that and using OS peer to peer on a LAN?

[general_re]

Sort of like "this pipe is for tobacco smoking only".

In a nutshell, yeah. Go figure ;)

[packrat35]

Your analogy is pointless. The supremes are a joke. Or did you not see the ruling AGAINST private property last week?

[SOSCEO]

Screw everyone else and their rights, it's good for you!

And just what rights would these be? The right to steal?

[Dominic Harr]

for those unfamilar with "fair use", do a Google search.

I don't understand something, apparently -- I thought that the Times case settlement was because it was clear that 'fair use' was not a defense in our case, hence the need to excerpt?

And that still doesn't address all the other entities we post from who haven't gotten around to suing us yet . . .

It seems this decision means we better start excerpting *everything*, or else. Am I wrong?

[SOSCEO]

And that still doesn't address the dozens (hundreds?) of other news sites we post from who have not yet gotten around to suing FR -- FR does still provide a way to "steal" those articles. And we do it every day.

Believe me, I do understand the concerns but I still see this as apples and oranges. First of all the ruling said simply that Grokster could be sued. They can be held accountable for their actions if they lose the lawsuit. But look at the company here. They exist for 2 purposes only. First to help people steal music and videos, and then to make money by loading your computer up with spyware and adware paid for by low life marketers. There is nothing even remotely as noble as fair use or free speech at issue here. Everyone loses except Grokster. It is time for them, and all like them, to pay up. You don't give low life companies like this a free pass to break the law.

FR does not intentionally promote intellectual property theft as it's one and only purpose for existing. In fact I can't really think of anything that does except for these file sharing programs. It just doesn't equate to some nefarious loss of rights that we never had and shouldn't have anyway.

[rwfromkansas]

Or for free with hacked versions.

[rwfromkansas]

"Steal" what? A copy of a song I bought with my own money?

Then yes.