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.

[SOSCEO]

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

What does this have to do with file sharing software? If you bought it, you have every right to listen to it, copy it, etc. You don't need to download it and you don't need to make it available for others to download for free.

[Calpernia]

What about the computer itself?

[Dominic Harr]

There is nothing even remotely as noble as fair use or free speech at issue here.

I'm certain you're incorrect on this detail.

The 'holy grail' of downloading is to completely revolutionize the media industry. And it's inevitable, at that, I'd argue.

The eventual model that will win out is for artists to put their music on a 'Grokster' type file download site, then make the bulk of their money playing live shows to the 'fan base'.

The artists will own and distrubute their own music. No 'gate keepers' controlling the distribution channels, wrenching the ownership of the music away from the artists just for the 'priviledge' of getting into stores.

That is already going on out there. A decent % of the music available out there is copyright-free. I understand it's up to 1/3rd of the music on some sites.

Those folks have a right to explore this new distribution channel. And it is preventing this 'revolution' of the industry that is the real goal of the RIAA's lawsuits. They are mainly worried about losing their 'monopoly' on the music distribution channels.

[rcocean]

Horrible ruling by a bunch of people over 65 - out of touch with the real world.

I hate Hollywierd for their politics and their gutter morals. But they know how to work the system - and make the rubes pay through the nose.

The rubes and boobs not only make Hollywierd rich - they actually feel good when Hollywierd takes them to the cleaners.

I don't get upset because Spielberg makes $100 million dollars a movie instead of $120 because of copyright infringement.

Fortunately for Steven, the SCOTUS and all the boobs do.

[Quick1]

Do you believe you should be able to sue gun manufacturers because they create guns with the intent of people using them? No? Didn't think so.

Then why do you believe you should be able to sue a company that creates a p2p program? It's the USERS, not the producers.

[SOSCEO]

The 'holy grail' of downloading is to completely revolutionize the media industry. And it's inevitable, at that, I'd argue.

I will agree on this point. Don't get me wrong here, tech is my business and has been for over 20 years. I am all for innovation. Since I have been 'hands on' in developing some of it for many years, I would be the last to try to stiffle anything that would prevent progress.

That being said, Grokster is not an innovator. They have merely copied other technologies for the purpose of making money off someones else's grief. My personal opinion that technology is not worth tolerating companies like Grokster.

Just as an exercise, search google for "grokster spyware". I know that spyware is another issue, and in fact it is being dealt with, this should underscore Groksters 'noble' intentions. They are not the innovators, they are the money grubbing abusers who's entire business model revolves around violating the 'real' rights of others.

[SOSCEO]

Do you believe you should be able to sue gun manufacturers because they create guns with the intent of people using them?

If some manufacturer marketed a gun for the sole purpose of commiting crimes with them, then YES, they should be sued.

Anyone that believes for one second that Grokster was not created to for the sole purpose of stealing music simply does not have a firm grip on the issues here.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

No, this court is classical fascist. Look it up.

[Quick1]

How about BitTorrent, then? The creator of that intented that his program be used to distribute large files very quickly, and it has been used like that. RedHat distributed it's latest edition over BitTorrent, and got copies of it's program out to users much faster than when everyone had to download from FTP sites. Other sites have borrowed from the BT concept, because it helps save bandwidth, as well as get files out faster.

However, BT is also being used to distribute copyrighted games, movies, music, and more. Should Bram Cohen be sued because he created a protocol that is being used illegally?

[rwfromkansas]

surprised there has not been a retirement announcement yet...

[SOSCEO]

However, BT is also being used to distribute copyrighted games, movies, music, and more. Should Bram Cohen be sued because he created a protocol that is being used illegally?

I am familiar with BitTorrent and it was not created for an illegal purpose, nor was FTP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc. I don't believe that any product that uses a P2P protocol variation should be automatically sued either. BUT, if you go out of your way to create and promote a product to for the explicit purpose of doing something illegal, then you should not be able to hide behind the 'it is the end users problem' excuse.

[Dominic Harr]

That being said, Grokster is not an innovator.

I certainly agree there.

Also on the 'spyware' thing.

I'd be in favor of all convicted spyware makers being sentenced to have to cook and serve Michael Moore everything and anything he wants for dinner every night for a year.

[SOSCEO]

I'd be in favor of all convicted spyware makers being sentenced to have to cook and serve Michael Moore everything and anything he wants for dinner every night for a year.

How about we throw in that they have to accompany him into the bathroom after dinner when he "does his business". Now that invokes an image of total disgust doesn't it.

[Dominic Harr]

How about we throw in that they have to accompany him into the bathroom after dinner when he "does his business".

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Man, you're just -- evil!

I love it.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

When you say "don't use this for copyright violation", you are implying that it can be.

[rwfromkansas]

So can VCR's.

But the court has ruled previously that technology is not the bad guy.

[Houmatt]

The Betamax ruling gave ordinary Americans such as you and me the right to record TV programs and motion pictures off the air with the intent of watching them later.

This ruling gives us the exact dead opposite.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

So can VCR's. But the court has ruled previously that technology is not the bad guy.

The whole point of this thread is that that view has been convoluted into meaninglessness. If I invent something and say "This can be used illegally." while you invent the same damn thing but don't say that, I'm liable and you are not, as if users couldn't figure out on their own in two seconds what they can do with it. With drug paraphernalia that could be used for tobacco or pot, they banned the device for what it COULD be used for, not what the maker said, which was usually "tobacco". You see the court splits hairs in order to arrive at conclusions that are completely contradictory, arbitrary and designed to fill the courts and oppress the people by dragging them through kafkaesque and irrational proceedings.

[Mr. Nobody]

"This ruling gives us the exact dead opposite.
"


Maybe I missed something in the ruling, but it seems the duplication software isn't the issue here. The issue before the court was distribution software, not duplication software. Software whose purpose is the distribution of copied digital media seems to be what the court said may be actionable.

[Houmatt]

(standing ovation to your post)